Wakefield v Humayun; Humayun v Wakefield [2022] NSWCATCD 16

Wakefield v Humayun; Humayun v Wakefield [2022] NSWCATCD 16

The tenant was liable for the agreed wall and door damage, oven cleaning, premises cleaning and rent arrears, but not for cooktop replacement because the parties had agreed that the landlord would waive that damage if the tenant left the side gate, which he did. The asbestos and bathroom leak claims did not justify relief because the asbestos was not a reduction or withdrawal of facilities under s.44(1)(b), and there was insufficient evidence of a timely repair failure for the bathroom leak. The landlord was responsible for trees growing in the water tanks and the tenant was awarded $125 compensation for removing them. The removal and non-replacement of the clothesline constituted a...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Residential Tenancy Claims in the Consumer and Commercial Division of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales / Principal Judgment After Hearing of Tenant's Claim and Landlord's Cross Claim
Outcome
The landlord was ordered to pay the tenant $210.07 within 14 days.
Legal Topics
['withdrawal or Reduction of Facilities' 'excessive Rent' 'compensation for Damage' 'rent Arrears' 'end of Tenancy Damages' 'rental Bond']
['residential Tenancy Law' 'consumer and Commercial Tenancy Disputes'] ['withdrawal or Reduction of Facilities' 'excessive Rent' 'compensation for Damage' 'rent Arrears' 'end of Tenancy Damages' 'rental Bond']

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 Claims in the Consumer and Commercial Division of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales / Principal Judgment After Hearing of Tenant's Claim and Landlord's Cross Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the tenant was liable for end of tenancy damage, cleaning costs, rent arrears and cooktop replacement claimed by the landlord.' 'Whether the landlord and tenant agreed that the landlord would waive the cooktop damage claim if the tenant left the side gate.' 'Whether alleged asbestos at the premises justified a rent reduction as a reduction or withdrawal of goods, services or facilities.' 'Whether bathroom leak issues supported compensation or rent reduction for failure to repair.' 'Whether removal of the clothesline constituted a reduction in facilities making the rent excessive.' 'Whether the tenant was entitled to compensation for removing trees growing in water tanks.']

Ratio Decidendi

The tenant was liable for the agreed wall and door damage, oven cleaning, premises cleaning and rent arrears, but not for cooktop replacement because the parties had agreed that the landlord would waive that damage if the tenant left the side gate, which he did. The asbestos and bathroom leak claims did not justify relief because the asbestos was not a reduction or withdrawal of facilities under s.44(1)(b), and there was insufficient evidence of a timely repair failure for the bathroom leak. The landlord was responsible for trees growing in the water tanks and the tenant was awarded $125 compensation for removing them. The removal and non-replacement of the clothesline constituted a...

Court Disposition

The landlord was ordered to pay the tenant $210.07 within 14 days.

Orders

  • ['The landlord is to pay the tenant the sum of $210.07 within 14 days of the date of these orders.']