Lam v Dirani [2019] NSWCATAP 244

Lam v Dirani [2019] NSWCATAP 244

The Tribunal did not err in finding that the landlord failed to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the premises were in a worse condition (beyond fair wear and tear) at the end of the tenancy than at its commencement. The evidence relied on by the landlord did not prove tenant-caused damage; the oral and documentary evidence accepted by the Tribunal, along with concessions by the landlord's agent and quality issues in the photographic evidence, supported the original outcome. The Tribunal provided adequate reasons and committed no error of law or evidence assesment necessitating intervention.

Parties
Appellant: Andie Lam; First Respondent: Fatima Dirani; Second Respondent: Mohamed Dirani
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Decision on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. Time to appeal extended to 24 June 2019.
Legal Topics
Obligations on Leaving Premises, Fair Wear and Tear, Condition Reports, Extension of Time to Appeal, Adequacy of Tribunal Reasons
Landlord and Tenant Residential Tenancies Obligations on Leaving Premises Fair Wear and Tear Condition Reports Extension of Time to Appeal Adequacy of Tribunal Reasons

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andie Lam

Appellant

Fatima Dirani

First Respondent

Mohamed Dirani

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal erred in failing to order payment for repainting allegedly required due to tenant damage
  2. 2 Whether Tribunal provided adequate reasons
  3. 3 Whether Tribunal took account of relevant and irrelevant considerations

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal did not err in finding that the landlord failed to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the premises were in a worse condition (beyond fair wear and tear) at the end of the tenancy than at its commencement. The evidence relied on by the landlord did not prove tenant-caused damage; the oral and documentary evidence accepted by the Tribunal, along with concessions by the landlord's agent and quality issues in the photographic evidence, supported the original outcome. The Tribunal provided adequate reasons and committed no error of law or evidence assesment necessitating intervention.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. Time to appeal extended to 24 June 2019.

Orders

  • Time to appeal is extended to 24 June 2019.
  • The appeal is dismissed.