Omary v Eid

Consideration of evidence and submissions

The appellants have provided a copy of their lease agreement and the ingoing condition report for the rented property. The landlord provided some 265 pages of evidence which was before the Tribunal when it made its original decision. The documents cover the period of the tenancy and events since the tenancy ended.
As we understand it, the oral submissions of the appellants at the hearing were intended to address not only the failure to attend the original hearing but the reason given by the Tribunal in dismissing the set aside application that there "was no evidence that the applicants are not indebted to the respondent for $1,794.29".
In his statutory declaration Mr Omary stated that his last court appearance in relation to charges against him was on 2 February 2023 and he missed the hearing on 9 February 2023 as he was too stressed. At the appeal hearing Mr Omary acknowledged that the appellants had received the notice of the hearing listed for 9 February 2023 but he said they "did not give attention to it". No adjournment was sought by the appellants at the time and Mr Omary repeated at the appeal hearing that it was a stressful time for him. The landlord states that the appellants were given adequate notice of the hearing but chose not to attend.
In relation to the rent arrears, the appellants argued in the set aside application that they were not properly notified of a rent increase in accordance with s 41 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (which primarily contributed to the arrears). At the appeal hearing Mr Omary, on behalf of the appellants, acknowledged that the rent increase notice had been received. The landlord provided a copy of the increase notice and submitted that it conformed to the requirements of the Residential Tenancies Act. The rental ledger provided by the landlord showed that the rent owing at the end of the tenancy was $1,444.29, which was the amount awarded by the Tribunal.
The appellants argue that they are not responsible for the cleaning and repairs claimed by the landlord. Much of their argument is based upon the fact that the ingoing condition report was not completed until two weeks after the commencement of the tenancy. They state that by this time their furniture and other belongings were in place and they therefore did not have an appreciation of the state of the premises at the commencement of the tenancy. This was raised particularly about burn marks on the carpet for which the landlords claimed the cost of repair.
The landlord states that the ingoing condition report was completed on 19 June 2021 about two weeks after the tenancy commenced. The property manager was on leave at the time and there were issues associated with arrangements in place due to COVID-19. The landlords state that the delay does not alter the accuracy of the condition report. We note that the tenant made no comments on the condition report and the attached photographs show the state of the premises.
The appellants stated in the set aside application that the outgoing condition report was completed three months after they moved out. Evidence provided by the landlord is that the appellants vacated the property on 28 December 2022 and an inspection was held the next day. At the appeal hearing Mr Omary said that this was a joint inspection between the landlord and the appellants. The appellants made no comments on the outgoing condition report.
The appellants also took issue with the fact that the landlord had emailed them with a different amount as owing than what was awarded at the hearing. The landlord provided copies of quotes received for the work and noted that the original quote did not include certain items. An updated quote which included those items was provided for the Tribunal hearing on 9 February 2023. In the set aside application the appellants referred to the landlord's agent claiming they pay for repairs that were the landlord's responsibility. The quote provided by the landlord includes two sections - one for items claimed as the appellants' responsibility and another for landlord items. The Tribunal awarded only those items claimed as the appellants' responsibility.
We accept that the appellants dispute the original decision made by the Tribunal and the dismissal of their set aside application. The only appeal before us is in relation to the set aside dismissal. In the set aside application and accompanying statutory declaration the appellants provided reasons for their absence from the hearing on 9 February 2023. The Tribunal seemed to accept that evidence and acknowledged that their absence resulted in their case not being adequately put to the Tribunal. We also accept the appellants' evidence with regard to their absence from the hearing, although we note that Mr Omary's evidence is that his court case concluded a week before the hearing. We also note he made no application to adjourn the Tribunal hearing.
The issue in this appeal, however, is whether the Tribunal erred in the exercise of its discretion in dismissing the set aside application. In particular, in accordance with the principles set out in Hammond, did it err in finding that there was not a real likelihood that it would be unjust to let the decision stand because there was no evidence that the appellants were not indebted to the landlord for the amount claimed.
The appellants did not provide any evidence to the Tribunal, other than assertions, that the amounts were not owing. On appeal they have similarly provided no evidence that the rent was not owing or that they were not responsible for cleaning and repairs. At the appeal hearing Mr Omary acknowledged that the rent increase notice was received. The rent increase notice given by the landlords complies with the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act and thus the rent was correctly increased. That increase was not challenged by the appellants as being excessive. We accept as accurate the rent ledger provided by the landlord. The appellants did not dispute the ledger.
The appellants have also not provided any evidence such as photographs to support their claims in relation to repairs. We do not accept that any delay in completing the ingoing condition report meant that the appellants could not include any pre-existing issues such as burn marks on the carpet or a cupboard door removed from its hinges on the report. They could easily have identified such matters even though furniture was placed in the property after they took possession and prior to completion of the ingoing condition report. The appellants' claims with respect to the outgoing condition report are without foundation, particularly as the evidence given at the appeal hearing was that it was a joint report. The appellants also disputed the amounts awarded by the Tribunal. It is clear that the original quote provided by the landlord did not include some items of repair and we are of the view that the amount awarded by the Tribunal in accordance with the revised quote was reasonable. We are also satisfied that no award was made for repairs to items which were the landlord's responsibility.
Overall, the appellants have not demonstrated that the amounts claimed by the landlord for rent arrears, cleaning and repairs were not owing. In our view the likelihood that the appellants have an arguable case that a decision different to that made at the original hearing could have been reached is remote. We can see no error in the exercise of the discretion by the Tribunal to dismiss the set aside application.
In addition, a fundamental problem with the appellants' appeal is that it has been filed out of time. As set out above, the application was required to be made within 14 days of the date of the dismissal decision by the Tribunal, that is by 24 March 2023. The appeal was lodged on 20 April 2023, almost four weeks out of time.
The appellants did not seek an extension of time within which to file the appeal until the issue was raised with them at the appeal hearing. Nevertheless, we have considered whether an extension of time should be granted.
The principles relating to consideration of an application to extend time were set out by the Appeal Panel in Jackson v NSW Land and Housing Corporation [2014] NSWCATAP 22 at [21]-[22]. In order to extend time we must be satisfied that strict compliance with the rules will work an injustice on the appellants. The relevant factors to consider are: 1. the length of the delay, 2. the reason(s) for the delay, 3. the appellants' prospects of success, i.e. whether there is a fairly arguable case, and 4. the extent of any prejudice suffered by the respondent landlord.
In relation to the delay, the appellants state they were not aware of the timeframe within which the appeal was required to be filed. The delay in lodging the appeal, being almost four weeks, is not insignificant given the 14 day time limit in residential proceedings. As to the reason for delay, it is a relatively simple matter to ascertain the appeal period.
The landlord strongly opposes an extension of time. The landlord states that the appellants have extended the process for as long as possible to avoid paying the amount owed. The landlord states she would suffer significant prejudice if the matter is to continue and the amount owing not paid. (On this point we note that there is no stay in place in relation to the order of the Tribunal and enforcement action may be taken by the landlord.) The rental property is owned by the landlord who lives in another rented property as the family has outgrown their home.
Turning now to the appellants' prospects of success in the appeal, as set out in Hammond and stated above, one of the matters relevant to the exercise of the discretion to set aside a decision of the Tribunal is whether the absent party, in this case the appellants, has an arguable case such that a different decision could have been reached. We have set out in detail above the evidence in relation to this issue and have concluded that the appellants did not have such a case. They have been unable to demonstrate any error on the part of the Tribunal in the exercise of its discretion to dismiss the set aside application.
In all the circumstances, particularly given the length of the delay and the absence of an adequate explanation for that delay combined with the fact that the appeal has no prospect of success, we consider that time for the filing of the application should not be extended.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (7 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (8)