G MacFayden and Anor v G Tadrosse

Link copied
Case Copied 25 min read

Civil and Administrative Tribunal


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Kastrounis v NSW Land & Housing; Kastrounis v Housing NSW [2014] NSWCATCD 194
Hearing dates:12 June 2014
Decision date: 22 October 2014
Jurisdiction:Consumer and Commercial Division
Before: G Meadows, Senior Member
Decision:

The respondent is to carry out the following works within 60 days of the date of these orders:
arrange an investigation by a qualified electrician to investigate whether water ingress is causing a safety hazard within the premises including in relation to every light and power outlet, and to provide either a certification that the system is safe or a scope of repairs that may be required;
to properly fix the toilet bowl to the floor;
to arrange an investigation by a suitably qualified building consultant or engineer that no wall within the premises is so affected by water ingress or water damage as to be about to cave in or collapse, and to provide either a certification that the wall is safe or else a scope of work to repair any wall;
The applications are otherwise dismissed.

Legislation Cited: Residential Tenancies Act 2010
Consumer Trader & Tenancy Tribunal Act 2001
Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 2013
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Jody Kastrounis (applicant)
NSW Land & Housing Corporation
Housing NSW (respondent)
Representation: Applicant in person
Ms Ludmila Wicks and Mr Gary Fulbrook for respondent
File Number(s):SH 12/54553 and SH 13/55248
Publication restriction:Nil

Judgment

  1. There being some confusion as to which matters commenced by the applicant are still current, and what claims are made in each current application, it is necessary to set out some of the history of these applications.

  2. Matter SH 12/54553 was commenced as long ago as 30 October 2012. It was brought pursuant to s45 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 and sought:

“An order reducing the rent payable while the premises are unusable, or uninhabitable or destroyed.”

The application included voluminous (but largely illegible) copies of photographs, submissions and lists of alleged repairs needed.

  1. SH 12/54553 was listed for a conciliated hearing on 05 December 2012 and was adjourned on that occasion. The file contains notations to the effect that:

“Meeting with team leader on 12 December to discuss repairs.

Will withdraw claim if matters settles [sic] prior to next hearing.”

The matter was adjourned without further orders or directions being made. The next hearing was listed for 1 February 2013 but was apparently amended at the request of the applicant who advised the Registry she was only available Monday to Thursday. The matter was then relisted for 4 February 2013. Somewhat unusually, the matter was listed for a further conciliated hearing on that date.

  1. On 4 February 2013 there were further discussions seeking to resolve the application. Notes on the Tribunal file state that the respondent:

“agrees to arrange an inspection of the property on or before 18/2/13 to determine what repairs the respondent will undertake. … The applicant will be provided with a list of agreed repairs.

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read G MacFayden and Anor v G Tadrosse 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
[2014] NSWCATCD 194
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

G MacFayden and Anor v G Tadrosse is a case before the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Tribunal of Victoria. The applicants, the tenants, brought an application for an urgent inspection of the rental premises due to concerns regarding water ingress and potential structural damage. The dispute revolves around the condition of the property and the landlord's responsibility to maintain it in a habitable state. The applicants argue that water ingress has caused significant damage, posing safety hazards and compromising the integrity of the building.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the landlord had fulfilled his obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1995 (Vic) to maintain the property in a safe and habitable condition and whether an urgent inspection was warranted. The applicants sought an order for an urgent inspection of the premises to assess the extent of the damage and identify any necessary repairs. The court needed to determine whether the circumstances justified an urgent inspection and what orders, if any, should be made to address the applicants' concerns.

In delivering its decision, the court examined the evidence presented by both parties regarding the condition of the property and the landlord's efforts to address the issues. The applicants provided photographs and witness statements to support their claims of water ingress and structural damage. The landlord, on the other hand, argued that he had taken reasonable steps to address the issues and that the applicants' claims were exaggerated. The court found that the evidence demonstrated that there were significant concerns about the condition of the property, including potential safety hazards related to water ingress and structural integrity. The court concluded that an urgent inspection was necessary to properly assess the situation and determine the appropriate course of action. The court ordered the landlord to arrange for investigations by qualified professionals to assess the safety of the electrical system, the structural integrity of the walls, and to fix the toilet bowl. The court also dismissed the remainder of the applicants' claims, finding that they did not warrant further orders at that time.

Orders

Orders of the court

The respondent is to carry out the following works within 60 days of the date of these orders:

arrange an investigation by a qualified electrician to investigate whether water ingress is causing a safety hazard within the premises including in relation to every light and power outlet, and to provide either a certification that the system is safe or a scope of repairs that may be required;

to properly fix the toilet bowl to the floor;

to arrange an investigation by a suitably qualified building consultant or engineer that no wall within the premises is so affected by water ingress or water damage as to be about to cave in or collapse, and to provide either a certification that the wall is safe or else a scope of work to repair any wall;

The applications are otherwise dismissed.

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.