Williams v Wang

Alexandria Landfill Pty Ltd v Transport for NSW (2020) 103 NSWLR 479; [2020] NSWCA 165

Bannister v Chung [2014] NSWCATCD 105

Bimson, Roads & Maritime Services v Damorange Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 734

Collins v Urban [2014] NSWCATAP 17

Cominos v Di Rico [2016] NSWCATAP 5

Dimunova v Vega [2017] NSWCATAP 5

Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v JS [2025] NSWSC 1172

Donohoe v Alburario [2025] NSWSC 9

Hu v Pender [2017] NSWCATAP 177

Hyndes v Maddak Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCATAP 302

Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales (2010) 239 CLR 531; [2010] HCA 1

Kostas v HIA Insurance Services Pty Ltd t/as Home Owners Warranty (2010) 241 CLR 390; [2010] HCA 32

Makowska v St George Community Housing Ltd [2021] NSWSC 287

McCartney v Wood [2023] NSWCATAP 131

McNeill v Clarence Valley Council [2025] NSWCATAP 184

Mulcair v Callum [2024] NSWCATAP 30

Orr v Cobar Management Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCCA 220

Pacorp Holdings Pty Ltd v Waller [2017] NSWCATAP 167

Pholi v Wearne [2014] NSWCATAP 78

Prendergast v Western Murray Irrigation Ltd [2014] NSWCATAP 69

Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte Aala (2000) 204 CLR 82; [2000] HCA 57

Resource Pacific Pty Ltd v Wilkinson [2013] NSWCA 33

Roberts v NSW Aboriginal Housing Office [2017] NSWCATAP 9

Ryan v BKB Motor Vehicle Repairs Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCATAP 39

The Owners- Strata Plan No 2661 v Selkirk [2024] NSWSC 760

TNT Building Trades Pty Ltd v Baker [2023] NSWCATAP 178

Tuckwell v Ientile [2022] NSWCATCD 124

Unique Commercial Property Group Limited v Cusumano [2024] NSWCATAP 204

Yang v NSW Land and Housing Corporation [2016] NSWCATAP 37

Yang v NSW Land and Housing Corporation [2016] NSWCATCD 37

Young v Chief Executive Officer (Housing) (2023) 278 CLR 208; [2023] HCA 31

Yuen v Thom [2016] NSWCATAP 243

1. This is an internal appeal under s 80 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) (NCAT Act) from a decision of the Consumer and Commercial Division of the Tribunal in a dispute under the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) (RT Act).
2. In this decision, any reference to "the tenants" is a reference to the appellants and any reference to "the landlord" is a reference to the respondent.
3. An issue in dispute was mould in the premises. The Tribunal dismissed the claims by the tenants for a 'rent reduction' under s 44(1)(b) of the RT Act and compensation under s 187(1) of the RT Act. The tenants' appeal the dismissal.

1. The parties entered into a written residential tenancy agreement on 21 May 2024 for a fixed term of 12 months. The residential premises was a 2-bedroom unit in a strata building. The rent was $850 pw.
2. The property was managed by a licensed managing agent on behalf of the landlord.
3. A relatively short period of time after commencement of the tenancy, the tenants complained to the landlord's agent about the condition of the premises and requested repairs be performed. Some complaints involved the installation of flyscreens on sliding doors. However, the majority of the complaints involved mould. In summary, the tenants complained of water ingress issues that caused ongoing mould in the unit, which also affected the goods and belongings of the tenants.
4. On 11 March 2025, the landlord served an end of fixed term Notice of Termination. The covering email by the landlord's agent stated that the landlord wanted to take possession to rectify the ongoing mould issue.
5. On 22 March 2025, the tenants commenced proceedings in the Tribunal. The tenants sought, in the application filed with the Tribunal "compensation for mould damages and inconvenience."
6. Later in March 2025, the landlord issued a second Notice to Terminate, this time for non-payment of rent. The landlord commenced its own proceedings in the Tribunal seeking a termination order. The landlord's termination application was ultimately withdrawn, as the tenants vacated the property on about 23 April 2025.
7. The tenants brought separate Tribunal proceedings involving the bond. After a procedural history that it is unnecessary to detail, the Tribunal ordered the bond be paid to the landlord and credited against rent arrears. The landlord also brought Tribunal proceedings against the tenants for damages or compensation due to the alleged condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy.
8. The tenants' claims against the landlord were listed for hearing on 13 August 2025. The hearing proceeded. The decision was reserved and reasons published on 18 August 2025.
9. The landlord's Tribunal proceedings in respect of the alleged condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy was not listed for hearing on that date.

1. The Tribunal published written reasons on 18 August 2025.
2. The reasons set out that, by the date of the hearing, the tenants claimed:

(a) A rent reduction under s 44(1)(b) of the RT Act of $100 per week for the duration of the tenancy (a 48-week period) due to the rent being excessive by reason of the reduction or withdrawal of services and facilities by the landlord due to the mould issues in the premises.

(b) Compensation in the amount of $4,755.65 under s 187(1)(d) of the RT Act for mould damage to goods and possessions of the tenants.

(c) "Administrative costs" in the amount of $255.65.

1. The tenants relied upon documentary evidence filed and served on 26 May 2025. That documentary evidence included photographs; email and text messages between the tenants and the landlord's agent; receipts (including laundry, dry cleaning, and end of tenancy professional cleaning); records of medical appointments and written statements.
2. The landlord relied on documentary evidence filed and served on 10 June 2025; and a further bundle of documents (11 pages) that the Tribunal granted leave for the landlord to rely upon at the hearing. The landlord's documents included photographs of the premises taken at various times.
3. At the Tribunal hearing, the landlord's managing agent did not appear. Rather, the landlord appeared; his wife; and a person described as his brother-in-law (Mr Lunniss). The tenant Ms Williams appeared at the hearing.
4. Evidence was given and submissions made by the parties. In summary, the position of the tenants was that there had been ongoing mould issues throughout the duration of the tenancy that had not been repaired, and the landlord was clearly on notice of the mould issue. Mould had damaged goods and belongings of the tenants, and the mould had caused a significant loss of amenity.
5. The position of the landlords was that the tenants' had caused the mould to reoccur by reason of failing to adequately ventilate the premises, including not keeping beds and furniture away from walls. The landlord submitted that previous tenants had not complained of mould issues. The premises had been left vacant since the end of the tenancy for 3.5 months while it had been cleaned and repainted, as recommended by a mould specialist.
6. The Tribunal's reasons set out the applicable legal principles involving the landlord's duty to keep and maintain premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the age of the premises, life expectancy of the premises, and amount of rent payable under ss 63 and 65 of the RT Act. The Tribunal also referred to principles under s 44(1)(b) of the RT Act; and applicable time periods to commence proceedings.
7. Under the sub-heading "Consideration" the Tribunal set out its findings.
8. The Tribunal found that there was mould in the premises in during the tenancy. The Member was not satisfied that there was mould in the premises at the commencement of the tenancy. Mould became apparent after the tenancy commenced. The reasons then stated:

"Having made this finding, the Tribunal then needs to consider whether the landlord had taken reasonable steps to address the mould issue and therefore comply with the requirements of s 63 of the RT Act.

It is unclear when the mould issue was first reported to the landlord by the tenants, but it is not in dispute that the landlord arranged for "mould cleaners" to attend the premises in July or August 2024 and October 2024 and they attempted to arrange for "mould cleaners" to attend in March 2025 before the tenants vacated the premises, but the tenants refused to provide access. Nor is it in dispute that the landlord's had fly screens installed on the sliding doors to enable the tenants to leave the sliding doors open to ventilate the property.

On this basis the Tribunal finds that once notified of the mould issue, the agent took reasonable steps to remedy the issue. As there can only be a breach of the obligation to maintain the premises if the landlord failed to act with reasonable diligence to have the repair carried out. The Tribunal is not satisfied that a breach of s 63 has been made out because it is not satisfied the landlord failed to act with reasonable diligence to address the mould issue.

As the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the landlord has breached his obligation under sections 52 or 63 of the RT Act, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that there is any basis for a claim for compensation under section 187 of the RT Act, or a claim for rent reduction based on withdrawal of goods, services or facilities under section 44 of the RT Act. For these reasons, the tenants' application is dismissed."

1. The tenants' filed a Notice of Appeal on 29 August 2025. The appeal has been filed within the requisite time period under Reg. 25(4)(b) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 (NSW) (NCAT Rules).
2. The grounds of appeal identify errors of law that relevantly include applying the wrong legal principles under ss 52 and 63 of the NCAT Act; denial of procedural fairness; and errors in factual findings. In addition to errors on a question of law, the tenants also sought leave to appeal.
3. The landlord filed a Reply to Appeal on 16 September 2025.
4. The tenants filed appeal documents and submissions on 13 October 2025. Those documents included documents that the tenant was relying upon at the Tribunal hearing.
5. The landlord filed appeal documents and submissions on 31 October 2025. Those documents also included documents that the landlord had relied upon at the Tribunal hearing.
6. Shortly before the appeal hearing, the landlord made an application to be represented by Mr Lunniss. The tenants opposed that application. Blake PM refused the application to grant leave for Mr Lunniss to represent the landlord.
7. At the appeal hearing, Ms Williams appeared on behalf of both tenants. The landlord appeared with the assistance of an interpreter. Mr Lunniss was also present.
8. At the appeal hearing, there was a further application for the landlord to be represented by Mr Lunniss under s 45 of the NCAT Act. Ms Williams again opposed that application. The application for leave to be represented by Mr Lunniss was refused, with oral reasons given. The appeal hearing proceeded.
9. The documents of both parties contained some additional documents that were not before the Tribunal hearing. Leave to rely on those documents is refused: Yuen v Thom [2016] NSWCATAP 243 at [17]- [22]. The documents do not assist on whether leave to appeal should be granted, nor is the Appeal Panel satisfied any aspect of the appeal warrants a new hearing where fresh evidence should be admitted.
10. The Appeal Panel has considered in the appeal the documents of both parties that were relied upon by the parties at the Tribunal hearing and have been provided to the Appeal Panel by the parties.

1. Internal appeals may be made as of right on a question of law, and otherwise with leave (that is, the permission) of the Appeal Panel: s 80 (2) of the NCAT Act.
2. An appeal is not simply an opportunity for a dissatisfied or aggrieved party to re-argue the case they put at first instance: Ryan v BKB Motor Vehicle Repairs Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCATAP 39 at [10].
3. What is an error on a question of law was extensively discussed by the Appeal Panel in Unique Commercial Property Group Limited v Cusumano [2024] NSWCATAP 204 (Cusumano) at [25]-[40]. An error on a question of law is an appeal as of right (if established) and does not require leave. A mixed error of fact and law (if established) requires leave to appeal.
4. In Cusumano at [33], the Appeal Panel stated the categories of questions of law are "not closed"; and at [37] stated:

What constitutes a question of law is vexed and context dependent in the sense that the distinction between matters of fact and of law may turn on the circumstances in which the question arises: Targeted Property Investments Pty Ltd v Look Up Technologies Pty Ltd (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 416 at [33(4)], citing Thomas and Naaz [2023] NSWCA 40 at [52] and Da Costa v The Queen [1968] HCA 51; (1968) 118 CLR 186 at 194; [1968] HCA 51.

1. It is unnecessary for the purpose of this decision to set out all of the examples of an error on a question of law that were discussed in Cusumano.
2. A pure question of law can be decided without any reference to the facts or may proceed by reference to assumed facts. Pure questions of law must be questions whose character as a question of law can be recognised on the face of the question and not depend upon the answer given to the question. This does not include a question which may ultimately disclose an error of law depending on an analysis of the facts but where this cannot be known without scrutiny of the facts: Orr v Cobar Management Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCCA 220 at [48] and [109].
3. However, a question of law may arise in the circumstances including the following:

(1) Failure to provide procedural fairness at the hearing (Donohoe v Alburario [2025] NSWSC 9 at [36]- [39]; Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales (2010) 239 CLR 531; [2010] HCA 1 at [60]; Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte Aala (2000) 204 CLR 82; [2000] HCA 57 at [41] (Gleeson CJ), [142] (Kirby J) and [170] (Hayne J).).

(2) No evidence at all to support a factual finding (Kostas v HIA Insurance Services Pty Ltd t/as Home Owners Warranty (2010) 241 CLR 390; [2010] HCA 32).

(3) Absence of the jurisdictional power to make an order (Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte Aala (2000) 204 CLR 82; [2000] HCA 57; at [163] (Hayne J))

(4) A constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction, in the sense of a failure to consider a "substantial, clearly articulated argument relying upon established facts" that was within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to determine (see e.g. Alexandria Landfill Pty Ltd v Transport for NSW (2020) 103 NSWLR 479; [2020] NSWCA 165 at [8]- [12] and [413]; Resource Pacific Pty Ltd v Wilkinson [2013] NSWCA 33 at [1] and [9]).

(5) Applying the wrong legal principle (considered in isolation to the factual findings) which materially affected the outcome (Bimson, Roads & Maritime Services v Damorange Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 734 (Bimson) at [38]-[53]; Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v JS [2025] NSWSC 1172 at [44]).

(6) However, the wrong application of the correct legal principles to the facts is an error of mixed fact and law for which leave to appeal is required under s 80(2)(b) of the NCAT Act (TNT Building Trades Pty Ltd v Baker [2023] NSWCATAP 178 at [42]- [43] and the authorities cited therein).

1. The circumstances in which the Appeal Panel may grant leave to appeal from decisions made in the Consumer and Commercial Division are limited to those set out in Cl. 12(1) of Sch. 4 of the NCAT Act. In such cases, the Appeal Panel must be satisfied that the appellant may have suffered a substantial miscarriage of justice on the basis that:

(a) The decision of the Tribunal under appeal was not fair and equitable; or

(b) The decision of the Tribunal under appeal was against the weight of evidence; or

(c) Significant new evidence has arisen (being evidence that was not reasonably available at the time the proceedings under appeal were being dealt with).

1. In Collins v Urban [2014] NSWCATAP 17 (Collins v Urban), the Appeal Panel stated at [76] that a substantial miscarriage of justice for the purposes of Cl. 12(1) of Sch. 4 may have been suffered where:

... there was a "significant possibility" or a "chance which was fairly open" that a different and more favourable result would have been achieved for the appellant had the relevant circumstance in para (a) or (b) not occurred or if the fresh evidence under para (c) had been before the Tribunal at first instance.

1. Even if the appellant establishes that it may have suffered a substantial miscarriage of justice in the sense explained above, the Appeal Panel retains discretion whether to grant leave under s 80(2) of the NCAT Act. The appellant must demonstrate something more than the Tribunal was arguably wrong (Pholi v Wearne [2014] NSWCATAP 78 at [32]).
2. Ordinarily it is only appropriate to grant leave in matters involving issues of principle or questions of public importance which might have general application; an injustice which is reasonably clear, in the sense of going beyond merely what is arguable, or an error that is plain and readily apparent which is central to the Tribunal's decision; or the Tribunal has gone about the fact finding process in such an unorthodox manner, or in such a way that it was likely to produce an unfair result it would be in the interests of justice for it to be reviewed (Collins v Urban at [84]).
3. In respect of a self-represented non-legally trained appellant, grounds of appeal may be considered generally (subject to procedural fairness considerations and the issues discussed in McNeill v Clarence Valley Council [ 2025] NSWCATAP 184 at [185]- [188]) to determine whether a question of law has been raised (Cominos v Di Rico [2016] NSWCATAP 5 at [13]).

(1) Provided Tribunal proceedings were filed before the end of the tenancy, a failure of a landlord provide premises fit for habitation, or to keep and maintain premises in a state of good repair, may provide the basis for a finding that the rent is excessive, and a reduction in rent ordered under s 44(1)(b) of the RT Act (e.g. Roberts v NSW Aboriginal Housing Office [2017] NSWCATAP 9 (Roberts) at [111]-[124]; A L Lindsay & Co Pty Ltd v Stickel [2023] NSWCATAP 195 (Stickel). Orders under s 44(1)(b) of the RT Act cannot be made for a period exceeding 12 months (s 44(6) RT Act).

(2) A tenant can also separately claim compensation or damages under ss 187(1) and 190 of the RT Act for a landlord's breach of its obligation to keep and maintain premises in a state of good repair; or provide premises fit for habitation; or fail to provide quiet enjoyment. That can include damages or compensation for goods or belongings of a tenant damaged by mould (e.g. Yang v NSW Land and Housing Corporation [2016] NSWCATCD 37 at [63]).

(3) If a claim for damages or compensation is made under ss 187(1) and 190 of the RT Act, that claim is subject to applicable limitation provisions in Reg 39(9) of the Residential Tenancy Regulation 2019 (NSW) (RT Regulation). That limitation period can be extended under s 41 of the RT Act.

(4) If there is a rent reduction under s 44(1)(b) of the RT Act and an award of compensation or damages under s 187(1) of the RT Act, the Tribunal must be careful not to 'double compensate' (Makowska v St George Community Housing Ltd [2021] NSWSC 287). However, there is discretion regarding the assessment of an appropriate remedy, with loss of amenity (including loss of the use and enjoyment of the premises) an important consideration (Stickel at [107]-[108]). Damages can also be awarded in a lump sum amount for distress, anxiety, and inconvenience (e.g. Hyndes v Maddak Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCATAP 302).

1. The landlord has separate duties to provide premises that are reasonably fit for habitation (s 52) of the RT Act and keep premises in a reasonable state of repair having regard to the rent payable for the premises; age of the premises; and life expectancy of the premises (s 63 of the RT Act).
2. The duty under s 63 of the RT Act, however, is dependent upon the landlord being aware, or should reasonably have been aware, of the need to repair, and the landlord having failed with reasonable diligence to conduct repairs (s 65(3)(b) and (3A) of the RT Act).
3. The landlord's duty under s 63(1) of the RT Act is mandatory, subject to ss 65(3) and (3A) of the RT Act (Dimunova v Vega [2017] NSWCATAP 5 at [31]; McCartney v Wood [2023] NSWCATAP 131 (Wood) at [77]). It is not conditional on the landlord having within the landlord's own power the ability to take steps to provide and maintain the residential premises; and the duty exists irrespective of the duty of an owners corporation to repair common property: Wood at [77]-[79].
4. A landlord acting with "reasonable diligence" to conduct repairs under s 65(3)(b) of the RT Act is focussed upon whether the item is actually repaired and the repair is performed within a reasonable period of time after the landlord knew, or should reasonably have known, of the need to conduct the repair. It is not sufficient that the landlord made reasonable attempts to repair by engaging tradespersons (subject to the issue of whether a tenant gave the landlord or the landlord's contractors reasonable access to perform repairs), or could not afford to conduct the repairs (Yang v NSW Land and Housing Corporation [2016] NSWCATAP 37 at [37] and [51]; Tuckwell v Ientile [2022] NSWCATCD 124 at [70)].
5. The existence of mould in residential premises, either from the commencement of the tenancy; or arising during the course of the tenancy can constitute a breach of the landlord's obligation to provide premises which are fit for habitation (s 52 of the RT Act) or breach the duty under s 63 (1) of the RT Act (Roberts at [115]-[119]; Bannister v Chung [2014] NSWCATCD 105; Pacorp Holdings Pty Ltd v Waller [2017] NSWCATAP 167 at [40]).
6. In Roberts, the Appeal Panel stated at, although the landlord's obligations under ss 52 and 63 of the RT Act are not identical, they are both relevant to whether there has been a reduction or withdrawal of goods, services and facilities so that rent is excessive under s 44(1)(b) of the RT Act. In Mulcair v Callum [2024] NSWCATAP 30, the Appeal Panel, after referring to Roberts at [113]-[124], stated at [33]-[35]:

"In short, a failure to repair and maintain may give rise to a reduction of goods, services or facilities provided with the residential premises.

In saying so, we note the age etc of the premises, which is relevant to the obligation to repair (see s 63(1)), does not displace the obligation of a landlord to provide premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and fit for habitation by a tenant as required by s 52(1) of the RT Act.

Rather, the obligations under ss 52 and 63 need to be considered together in determining whether there has been a relevant reduction in goods, services, or facilities in the residential premises."

1. In this matter, the mould affected areas were within the unit and were clearly part of the residential premises that is the subject of the residential tenancy agreement between the parties.
2. The critical reasons of the Tribunal found that there was no breach of either ss 52 or 63(1) of the RT Act because the landlord's agent had taken "reasonable steps" to repair the issues causative of mould in the premises. Those "reasonable steps" were engaging "mould cleaners" on two occasions and arranging them to attend again which was obviated by the tenants moving out of the premises.
3. The Tribunal has applied the wrong legal test in respect of the landlord's duty under s 63(1) of the RT Act.
4. It is not sufficient for a landlord to take "reasonable steps." The salient issue is whether or not repairs were conducted to put the premises into a reasonable state of repair, and whether those repairs were conducted within a reasonable period of time. The Tribunal also had to consider whether the premises fell into a condition that was not fit for habitation, separately to whether the premises were not in a reasonable state of repair.
5. The Tribunal did not find that the landlord had adequately repaired the premises at any point in time after the landlord was aware, or should reasonably have been aware, of the existence of mould in the premises. Attendance by a "mould cleaner" on two occasions does not, of itself, establish that the premises were put back into a state of good repair (having regard to the age of the premises; rent payable for the premises; and life expectancy of the premises). If anything, the reoccurrence of mould after there had been professional "mould cleaning" is evidence that the premises fell back into a state of disrepair; or that there had been no adequate repair in the first place.
6. There have also been no findings by the Tribunal on the issue of causation (i.e. whether the landlord's breach of its obligations under ss 52 and/or s 63(1) of the RT Act were not causative of the mould). The landlord argued that the cause of the mould was the tenants placing bedding and furniture next to walls; and failing to adequately ventilate the premises. The tenants denied that allegation.
7. Causation is an evaluative question of fact that is determined in a practical manner, having regard to the purposes of the RT Act. The "but for" test is important although not always determinative, particularly where multiple causative events are involved. Causation principles (both in respect of the common law, and in respect of statutory causes of action that may modify the common law, are discussed in detail by Leeming JA in The Owners- Strata Plan No 2661 v Selkirk [2024] NSWSC 760 at [127]- [141]; see also: Young v Chief Executive Officer (Housing) (2023) 278 CLR 208; [2023] HCA 31 at [25] and [29]; and [60]-[66]).
8. The Tribunal has applied the wrong legal principle to the facts because it has approached landlord's duty to repair on the basis that it was sufficient to take "reasonable steps" to repair. That is an error on a question of law in the sense identified in Bimson at [44], because the Tribunal has applied the wrong legal principle to the facts, which can be identified in isolation to the factual findings.
9. Even if the error was one of mixed fact and law requiring leave to appeal, leave would be granted. The focus upon the landlord taking "reasonable steps" rather than actually repairing the premises meant the Tribunal was diverted from consideration of the apposite test under ss 63 and 65 of the RT Act. Consequently, the Tribunal applied the wrong legal test to consideration of whether there had been a reduction or withdrawal of goods, services, and facilities sufficient that the rent was excessive and a 'rent reduction' should be awarded under s 44(1)(b) of the RT Act.
10. Had the Appeal Panel not been there was an error on a question of law, and the leave to appeal was required, it would have been satisfied the tenants may have suffered a substantial miscarriage of justice because the decision was not fair and equitable; and that an injustice that is clear and readily apparent beyond being merely arguable would have been established. The emphasis upon "reasonable steps" by the landlord rather than whether the premises had been put into a state of reasonable repair affected the factual findings and the ultimate legal finding that the tenants' claims should be dismissed.
11. It is unnecessary to consider whether leave to appeal would be granted on the basis of the decision being against the weight of evidence (Hu v Pender [2017] NSWCATAP 177 at [17]). However, it is noted that the tenants had provided detailed photographic evidence of significant mould in the premises over a considerable period of time and had complained to the landlord's agent about the mould issue on a number of occasions.
12. The appeal is allowed.
13. Under s 81(1)(e) the Appeal Panel can remit a matter back to the Tribunal to be "reconsidered by the Tribunal, either with or without further evidence, in accordance with the directions of the Appeal Panel". The Appeal Panel can make its own order whether the remitted proceedings are determined with, or without, further evidence, or allow the Tribunal to consider whether leave should be granted to the parties to adduce further evidence.
14. There was significant discord between the parties at the appeal hearing and both parties had difficulty in focussing upon the real legal issues in dispute. Both parties had a reasonable opportunity to adduce documentary evidence prior to the Tribunal hearing.
15. It is not appropriate for the parties to be given a further opportunity to adduce fresh documentary evidence in the remitted proceedings. To grant such leave or allow the Tribunal to consider whether leave should be granted will only lead to further unnecessary disputation between the parties. The remitted proceedings should be determined on the basis of the same documentary evidence that was before the Tribunal on 13 August 2025.
16. After the hearing concluded Ms Williams emailed the Appeal Panel Registry with further purported documentary evidence, and assertions about the current condition of the property. That material has not been considered in the appeal. The appeal has succeeded and there is no basis to consider any application to re-open the appeal hearing.
17. In the remitted proceedings, issues involving whether the landlord is granted leave to be represented under s 45 of the NCAT Act (and if so, on what basis); and what further oral evidence or submissions are permitted on the documentary evidence that was before the Tribunal on 13 August 2025 are matters for the Tribunal to determine.

(2) The proceedings are remitted to the Tribunal to be determined according to law, on the basis of the same documents that had been relied upon by the parties at the Tribunal hearing on 13 August 2025.

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.