Keene v Tattersalls Capital Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCATCD 13

Keene v Tattersalls Capital Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCATCD 13

The applicants failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that the respondent breached the Management Agreement or s60 of the Australian Consumer Law, exceeded its authority, or caused the claimed losses. The Tribunal found the television aerial repair was authorised, the SkyMark works were consented to and dealt with by the applicants, the respondent was entitled to the letting and management fees, the water usage amount was not recoverable from the respondent, and the alleged financial loss was not proved to have been caused by the respondent.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Consumer Claim / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['exclusive Management Agency Agreement' 'property Management Services' 'due Care and Skill' 'real Estate Agent Authority' 'rental Bond' 'water Usage Charges' 'management Fees']
['consumer Law' 'property Law' 'residential Tenancies'] ['exclusive Management Agency Agreement' 'property Management Services' 'due Care and Skill' 'real Estate Agent Authority' 'rental Bond' 'water Usage Charges' 'management Fees']

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

Consumer Claim / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondent breached the Exclusive Management Agency Agreement in managing the applicants' rental property." 'Whether the respondent exceeded its authority by arranging repairs to the television aerial and works by SkyMark Pty Ltd.' 'Whether the respondent failed to provide services with due care and skill under s 60 of the Australian Consumer Law.' 'Whether the applicants proved loss caused by any breach, including claimed letting fees, water usage, contractor costs, management fees and financial loss.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that the respondent breached the Management Agreement or s60 of the Australian Consumer Law, exceeded its authority, or caused the claimed losses. The Tribunal found the television aerial repair was authorised, the SkyMark works were consented to and dealt with by the applicants, the respondent was entitled to the letting and management fees, the water usage amount was not recoverable from the respondent, and the alleged financial loss was not proved to have been caused by the respondent.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed']