Ryan v Pan and Zhang [2023] NSWCATCD 40

Ryan v Pan and Zhang [2023] NSWCATCD 40

The Tribunal found that the landlord failed to promptly repair the faulty lights, cracks, and water ingress, leading to loss of amenity and mould, and that this constituted a reduction of facilities, justifying a rent reduction under s 44(1)(b). However, the rent increase to $670 per week was not excessive compared to comparable local apartments. The Tribunal also held that the notice of termination was retaliatory, being motivated at least in part by the tenant's application to enforce rights under the Act, and declared it of no effect.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Residential Tenancy Dispute / Final Decision
Outcome
Rent reduction and repair orders granted in part; application for excessive rent increase dismissed; retaliatory notice of termination declared ineffective.
Legal Topics
['rent Reduction' 'excessive Rent Increase' 'repairs' 'retaliatory Notice of Termination']
['tenancy' 'consumer Law'] ['rent Reduction' 'excessive Rent Increase' 'repairs' 'retaliatory Notice of Termination']

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 Dispute / Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the rent increase was excessive under s 44(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010' 'Whether order for rent reduction should be made under s 44(1)(b) of the Act due to withdrawal of facilities' 'Whether landlord failed to repair and maintain the premises as required under s 63 and s 65 of the Act' 'Whether notice of termination served was retaliatory under s 115 of the Act']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the landlord failed to promptly repair the faulty lights, cracks, and water ingress, leading to loss of amenity and mould, and that this constituted a reduction of facilities, justifying a rent reduction under s 44(1)(b). However, the rent increase to $670 per week was not excessive compared to comparable local apartments. The Tribunal also held that the notice of termination was retaliatory, being motivated at least in part by the tenant's application to enforce rights under the Act, and declared it of no effect.

Court Disposition

Rent reduction and repair orders granted in part; application for excessive rent increase dismissed; retaliatory notice of termination declared ineffective.

Orders

  • ['The rent is not to exceed $614 from 28 March 2022 to 19 April 2022.' 'The rent is not to exceed $579 per week from 20 April 2022 to 25 December 2022.' 'The rent is not to exceed $629 from 26 December 2022 to 27 March 2023.' 'The landlord is to repair the water ingress in the ceilings in both bedrooms, repair the...