Bartlett v Ramasamy

Bartlett and Ramasamy were involved in a dispute concerning residential tenancies, specifically in relation to a transfer/posting clause within their lease agreement and the tenant's obligation to clean the premises prior to vacating. The matter was heard by the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. The tenant, Bartlett, alleged that the lessor, Ramasamy, had provided misleading advice regarding the transfer/posting clause and the time frame in which the cleaning was to be completed. The tenant sought compensation for the alleged misleading advice.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the lessor had indeed provided misleading advice regarding the transfer/posting clause and the time frame in which the cleaning was to be completed. Additionally, the Tribunal needed to determine if such advice, if found to be misleading, warranted compensation to the tenant.

The Tribunal found that the lessor had provided misleading advice to the tenant regarding the transfer/posting clause and the time frame for cleaning. The lessor had informed the tenant that they could leave the property untidy, as the transfer/posting clause allowed for the tenant to leave the property in a state of disrepair. However, this advice was found to be misleading as the clause did not explicitly permit leaving the property untidy. Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the advice was misleading as it did not accurately reflect the terms of the lease agreement, and the tenant had relied on this advice to their detriment. As a result, the Tribunal found that the tenant was entitled to compensation in the form of $284 to be paid by the lessor within 28 days.