Schrell v NSW Land and Housing Corporation [2019] NSWCATAP 256

Schrell v NSW Land and Housing Corporation [2019] NSWCATAP 256

Although some amounts claimed by the tenant could have been allowed in principle, namely $64 for increased electricity, $80 for a damaged blouse, and $80 for spoiled food, those amounts totalled $224 and were adequately covered by the Tribunal's existing $400 award for loss of amenity. The remaining claims were rejected because they were too remote, unsupported, caused by the tenant, not raised below, addressed by the rent reduction and accommodation orders, or did not disclose error. No error was established that would justify compensation exceeding $400, and leave to appeal was refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Residential Tenancy Appeal Concerning Compensation and Rent Reduction / Appeal Panel; Leave to Appeal Sought From Consumer and Commercial Division Decision Dated 6 June 2019
Outcome
Leave to appeal is refused and the appeal is dismissed.
Legal Topics
['compensation for Breach of Residential Tenancy Agreement' 'rent Reduction' 'alternative Accommodation' 'remoteness of Loss' 'leave to Appeal on Factual Findings' 'costs in NCAT Proceedings' 'double Compensation']
['residential Tenancy Law' 'civil Procedure' 'damages and Compensation'] ['compensation for Breach of Residential Tenancy Agreement' 'rent Reduction' 'alternative Accommodation' 'remoteness of Loss' 'leave to Appeal on Factual Findings' 'costs in NCAT Proceedings' 'double Compensation']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Residential Tenancy Appeal Concerning Compensation and Rent Reduction / Appeal Panel; Leave to Appeal Sought From Consumer and Commercial Division Decision Dated 6 June 2019

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal erred in awarding only $400 compensation for loss of amenity in addition to accommodation costs and rent reduction.' 'Whether the tenant was entitled to additional compensation for electricity charges, loss of discount on an IKEA wardrobe, winter clothing, cleaning costs, a parking fine, a blouse, loss of basic living amenities, spoiled food, fuel and transport, and costs of the first instance proceedings.' 'Whether new claims for water charges and health supplements could be raised on appeal.' 'Whether further compensation would duplicate compensation already provided by the rent reduction order and accommodation orders.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although some amounts claimed by the tenant could have been allowed in principle, namely $64 for increased electricity, $80 for a damaged blouse, and $80 for spoiled food, those amounts totalled $224 and were adequately covered by the Tribunal's existing $400 award for loss of amenity. The remaining claims were rejected because they were too remote, unsupported, caused by the tenant, not raised below, addressed by the rent reduction and accommodation orders, or did not disclose error. No error was established that would justify compensation exceeding $400, and leave to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is refused and the appeal is dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is refused and the appeal is dismissed.']