Fitzharris v Llic

Link copied
Case Copied 19 min read

Civil and Administrative Tribunal


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Fitzharris v Llic [2019] NSWCATCD 81
Hearing dates: 13 May 2019
Date of orders: 24 June 2019 - Amended 7 August 2019
Decision date: 24 June 2019
Jurisdiction:Consumer and Commercial Division
Before: S Daly, General Member
Decision:

The orders sent to you have been amended under Section 63 of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 and should read as follows:

The Respondents, Dragoslav & Natasha Llic to pay the Applicant, Katherine Fitzharris the sum of $7325.04 within 28 days of the date of these orders.

Catchwords:

RESIDENTIAL TENANCY - Residential Tenancy Agreement - Termination - Landlord's statutory obligations - Reasonable state of cleanliness - Breach of Landlord 

Legislation Cited:

Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Bhandrari v Laming [2015] NSWCATAP 224

Proudfoot v Hart (1890) 25 QBD 420

Menashi v Ly [1997] NSWRT 162

Raats v Zein [2016] NSWCATCD 62

De Soleil v Palmhide Pty Ltd [2010] NSWCTTT 464;

Fairly v Stadlmann [2005] NSWCTTT 482

Kuek vBettrfielf [2004] NSWCTTT 210

Lewin v Zhou [2018] NSWCATD 54

Raats v Zein [2016] NSWCARCD 62

Bartley and Zawiolkowski v Harris Park Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] NSWCTTT 592

Stuart v Colley [2004] NSWCTTT 179

Roberts v Bell [2001] NSWRT 6

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Katherine Fitzharris (Applicant)
Dragoslav & Natasha Llic (Respondents)
Representation: Applicant (self-represented)
Georgia Tassis (for the respondent)
File Number(s): RT 19/09588
Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

Factual Background

  1. The Applicant, tenant entered into a Residential Tenancy Agreement with the Respondents, landlords on 31 January 2019. The term of the Agreement was 52 weeks and covered the period 1 February 2019 – 30 January 2010. The property was in Sandringham, NSW. Prior to signing the Agreement, the Applicant paid a holding deposit. At the time of signing, the Applicant paid a bond equalling 2 weeks rent. The rent payable was $520 per week.

  2. Prior to signing the Agreement the Applicant says she inspected the property. Pm 17 January 2019 at about 4.30pm. The Applicant says that there was a tenant living there, the property was full of the tenant's belongings and there were boxes everywhere on the floor. The Applicant says that the agent told her that the property was very messy but that it would be professionally cleaned, carpets would be cleaned and things would be sorted before the Applicant moved in.

  3. The Applicant received a complete set of keys after 6pm on 31 January and a copy of a condition report for her to complete within 7 days.

  4. She went to the property after 6pm, inspected it and sent an email to the agent of the Respondents expressing concerns about the state of the property as follows:

"Hi Georgia,

Firstly thanks for calling in with the right key in the arvo, at least we got in and didn’t have to call a locksmith. You were very professional and easy to deal with lease etc so thanks. I was keen to get back and…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Fitzharris v Llic and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2019] NSWCATCD 81
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Fitzharris v Llic involved the Applicant, Katherine Fitzharris, and the Respondents, Dragoslav and Natasha Llic. The dispute arose out of a residential tenancy agreement where the Applicant was a tenant of a property owned by the Respondents. The primary contention was whether the Respondents breached their statutory obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) by failing to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness. The case was heard by the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

The central legal issues the Tribunal needed to address were whether the Respondents breached the statutory obligation to keep the property in a reasonable state of cleanliness, and if so, whether this breach justified the Applicant's termination of the lease and her claim for compensation. The Tribunal examined the evidence provided regarding the condition of the property and the Respondents' maintenance practices, as well as the legal standards for cleanliness in rental properties. The Applicant argued that the property was in an unsanitary condition, which constituted a breach of the statutory duty, while the Respondents contended that they had fulfilled their obligations and that the Applicant's claims were exaggerated.

After reviewing the evidence and the applicable law, the Tribunal concluded that the Respondents did indeed breach their statutory obligation to maintain the property in a reasonable state of cleanliness. The Tribunal found that the unsanitary conditions observed in the property constituted a significant departure from what is considered reasonable. Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the Applicant was justified in terminating the lease and was entitled to compensation for the breaches. The Tribunal ordered the Respondents to pay the Applicant the sum of $7325.04 within 28 days of the date of the orders.

Orders

Orders of the court

The orders sent to you have been amended under Section 63 of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 and should read as follows:

The Respondents, Dragoslav & Natasha Llic to pay the Applicant, Katherine Fitzharris the sum of $7325.04 within 28 days of the date of these orders.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.