Chang v Wang [2022] NSWCATCD 7

Chang v Wang [2022] NSWCATCD 7

The premises were uninhabitable from the time of the flood until at least 25 August 2021, but the landlords had completed recommended remediation by then and the Tribunal was not satisfied that mould continued to make the premises uninhabitable when the tenant terminated on 14 October 2021. The continuing master bedroom leak was unsatisfactory but did not itself make the property uninhabitable. The agreement was not frustrated, the tenant had no right to terminate under section 109, and the landlords were not in breach of section 63 so as to justify termination under section 98. Compensation under section 107 was appropriate, but the full four-week clause 41 amount would be unjust because...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Residential Tenancy Rental Bond and Break Lease Fee Dispute / Application for Release of Rental Bond After Hearing; Principal Judgment
Outcome
Application resolved by awarding the landlords $1,300 as compensation, payable from the rental bond with the balance returned to the tenant.
Legal Topics
['rental Bond' 'break Lease Fee' 'uninhabitable Premises' 'termination of Fixed Term Residential Tenancy' 'landlord Compensation for Abandonment' 'repairs and Mould']
['residential Tenancy Law' 'leases and Tenancies' 'consumer and Commercial Law'] ['rental Bond' 'break Lease Fee' 'uninhabitable Premises' 'termination of Fixed Term Residential Tenancy' 'landlord Compensation for Abandonment' 'repairs and Mould']

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 Rental Bond and Break Lease Fee Dispute / Application for Release of Rental Bond After Hearing; Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the residential premises were uninhabitable when the tenant terminated the tenancy.' 'Whether the tenant was entitled to terminate the agreement early under section 109 or section 98 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW).' 'Whether the landlords were entitled to compensation or a break lease fee under section 107 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) and clause 41 of the agreement.' 'What amount, if any, should be paid to the landlords from the rental bond.']

Ratio Decidendi

The premises were uninhabitable from the time of the flood until at least 25 August 2021, but the landlords had completed recommended remediation by then and the Tribunal was not satisfied that mould continued to make the premises uninhabitable when the tenant terminated on 14 October 2021. The continuing master bedroom leak was unsatisfactory but did not itself make the property uninhabitable. The agreement was not frustrated, the tenant had no right to terminate under section 109, and the landlords were not in breach of section 63 so as to justify termination under section 98. Compensation under section 107 was appropriate, but the full four-week clause 41 amount would be unjust because...

Court Disposition

Application resolved by awarding the landlords $1,300 as compensation, payable from the rental bond with the balance returned to the tenant.

Orders

  • ['The tenant, Hannah Chang, is to pay the landlords, Jin Wang and Yidong Lu, $1,300 immediately.' 'Rental Bond Services must pay the landlords $1,300 from Rental Bond number S677167-2.' 'The balance of the rental bond is to be paid to the tenant, Hannah Chang.' 'The amount paid to the landlord in order (2) is to be...