Amber Werchon Property on Behalf of Rose Bell v Tiana Martha Watene-Withers and Shane Phillip Withers

Amber Werchon, acting on behalf of Rose Bell, brought an appeal against Tiana Martha Watene-Withers and Shane Phillip Withers in relation to a dispute over a reduction in rental payments. The matter was heard by the Civil and Administrative Appeals Tribunal of New South Wales, which was tasked with assessing whether the lower court had correctly applied the law in its determination of the amount owed by the tenants to the landlords. The Tribunal was required to consider whether the lower court had erred in its calculation of the rent reduction, specifically in relation to the amount awarded for pool chemicals.

The legal issues at hand were whether the lower court had failed to take into account a relevant consideration, committed a mistake of fact, or failed to verify the facts, and if the findings of fact were reasonably available on the evidence. The Tribunal needed to determine whether the lower court had applied the correct legal principles in assessing the rent reduction and whether the decision was supported by the evidence. Furthermore, the Tribunal had to evaluate whether the lower court had properly considered the loss of amenity due to the tenant's failure to maintain the property and if the award for pool chemicals was justified.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal found that while the lower court had correctly considered the loss of amenity and the general principle of rent reduction, it had erred in its calculation of the amount for pool chemicals. The Tribunal concluded that the lower court's findings of fact were reasonably available on the evidence but that there had been a mistake in the calculation of the award for pool chemicals. As a result, the appeal was partially allowed, and the amount awarded to the respondents was varied by $114.50, which was the difference between the amount awarded for the pool chemicals and the documentary evidence supporting the claim. Consequently, the Tribunal ordered that Amber Werchon must pay the respondents $1,637.49 and, if the respondents had already paid $1751.99, they were to refund $114.50 to Amber Werchon by a specified date.