Patricia Lo Presti v G Mak and M Fung [2014] NSWCATCD 219

Patricia Lo Presti v G Mak and M Fung [2014] NSWCATCD 219

The application was dismissed because the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to grant the rent reimbursement sought as an excessive rent claim in the circumstances; the tenant did not prove that the landlord had notice of relevant defects before the reported incidents or breached repair or habitation obligations, and the evidence showed the landlord acted promptly once notified; without a proven breach, economic loss and physical inconvenience compensation could not be awarded, and the non-economic loss claim was unsupported and did not meet the Civil Liability Act threshold.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Residential Tenancy Application for Reimbursement, Rent Reduction, Compensation and Costs / Final Hearing; Principal Judgment
Outcome
The application is dismissed.
Legal Topics
['landlord Repair Obligations' 'urgent Repairs' 'rent Reduction' 'economic Loss' 'non Economic Loss' 'tribunal Jurisdiction' 'costs']
['residential Tenancy Law' 'consumer and Commercial Law'] ['landlord Repair Obligations' 'urgent Repairs' 'rent Reduction' 'economic Loss' 'non Economic Loss' 'tribunal Jurisdiction' 'costs']

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 Application for Reimbursement, Rent Reduction, Compensation and Costs / Final Hearing; Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to order reimbursement or reduction of rent said to be excessive for the period 29 April 2013 to 27 April 2014.' 'Whether the landlord breached duties under the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 concerning fitness for habitation, cleanliness or repair in relation to water pooling, flooding and gutters.' 'Whether the tenant proved economic loss caused by any breach by the landlord.' 'Whether the tenant proved entitlement to compensation for physical inconvenience or non-economic loss.' 'Whether the tenant should receive costs for attendance when the respondent did not attend on medical grounds.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to grant the rent reimbursement sought as an excessive rent claim in the circumstances; the tenant did not prove that the landlord had notice of relevant defects before the reported incidents or breached repair or habitation obligations, and the evidence showed the landlord acted promptly once notified; without a proven breach, economic loss and physical inconvenience compensation could not be awarded, and the non-economic loss claim was unsupported and did not meet the Civil Liability Act threshold.

Court Disposition

The application is dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The tenant's claim for rent reimbursement or rent reduction is dismissed." "The tenant's claim for compensation for economic loss is dismissed." "The tenant's claim for compensation for physical inconvenience or non-economic loss is dismissed." 'No cost order is made against the respondent.']