Haber v Tadrous - [2025] NSWCATCD 32

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Haber v Tadrous [2025] NSWCATCD 32
Hearing dates: 9 April 2025
Date of orders: 26 May 2025
Decision date: 26 May 2025
Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division
Before: G A Kinsey General Member
Decision:
(1) The application is dismissed.

Catchwords:
LEASES AND TENANCIES- Tenants claim for compensation for breach of tenancy agreement-time limits applicable to applications for compensation-principles applicable to extension of time -claims for economic and non-economic loss

Legislation Cited:
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW)
Residential Tenancies Regulation 2019(NSW)

Cases Cited:
Annette Shailer v Camille Serisier [2016] NSWCATAP 131
Baltic Shipping Co v Dillon [1993] HCA 4
Hyndes v Maddak Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCATAP 302
Jackson v NSW Land and Housing Corporation [2014] NSWCATAP 22
Makowska v St George Community Housing Ltd [2021] NSWSC 287
Pongrass v Small [2021] NSWCATAP 31
Roberts v NSW Aboriginal Housing Office [2017] NSWCATAP 9

Texts Cited:
None

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Chrisovalanda Haber and Anthony Haber (Applicants)
Yousiff Tadrous and Mary Tadrous (Respondents)
Representation: Applicants in person
Respondents represented by their agent and Mary Tadrous in person

File Number(s): 2025/00034679
Publication restriction: Unrestricted

REASONS FOR DECISION

Parties

The Applicants (hereinafter referred to as “the Tenants”) are the former tenants of residential premises situated at xxxx Chipping Norton (hereinafter referred to as “the Premises”).
The Respondents (hereinafter referred to as “the Landlords”) are the owners and Landlords of the Premises.

Application

In an application filed in the Tribunal on 28 January 2025 and amended on 3 March 2025, the Tenants sought orders for the payment of compensation for economic and non-economic loss. The Tenants alleged numerous breaches of the residential tenancy agreement during the period of the tenancy.
Although the application did not particularise the compensation claimed from the Landlords, the Tenants included as part of their documentation a schedule setting out the various items for which compensation was sought.

Jurisdiction

The parties did not dispute the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear and determine the application. The dispute concerns a residential tenancy agreement between the parties entered on 6 December 2018.
The premises are “residential premises” within the meaning of section 3 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (“the RTA”). The agreement is a “residential tenancy agreement” as defined in section 13(1) of the RTA. Matters arising under the RTA are allocated to the Consumer and Commercial Division of the Tribunal under Schedule 4 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.
I find that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine the application

Tenants’ Claims

The Tenants’ claims are set out in their written submission and may be summarised as follows:

(i)

Reimbursement of cost to install double screen security doors

$1900.00

(ii)

Reimbursement of cost to repair damaged back fence

$155.00

(iii)

Reimbursement of cost of metal side gate

$350.00

(iv)

Reimbursement of cost to repair colorbond fence

$450.00

(v)

Reimbursement of cost of glue to repair ensuite tiles

$20.00

(vi)

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Haber v Tadrous

Details

AGLC: Haber v Tadrous [2025] NSWCATCD 32
Case: [2025] NSWCATCD 32
Decision Date: 26 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Haber v Tadrous involved a dispute between tenants and a landlord concerning compensation for a breach of a tenancy agreement. The tenants, the Habers, sought damages for various claims including economic and non-economic losses, as well as an extension of time for filing their compensation claim, which they argued was barred by a limitation period. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central legal issues revolved around whether the Habers' application for an extension of time to file their compensation claim was justified, and if so, under what principles, and whether they were entitled to compensation for the alleged breach of their tenancy agreement.

The court examined the statutory provisions governing limitation periods for claims and the principles applicable to extending such periods. The Habers argued that they had not been aware of the breach until a certain date, and therefore, their claim should be considered outside the limitation period. The court considered the Habers' application in light of established case law on the extension of limitation periods, such as the case of Tabcorp Holdings Ltd v Bowen Investments Pty Ltd, which sets out the criteria for extending such periods. The Habers needed to demonstrate that they had exercised reasonable diligence in bringing their claim, and that there were exceptional circumstances warranting an extension of time.

The Supreme Court found that the Habers had not demonstrated sufficient diligence in bringing their claim within the statutory period and that there were no exceptional circumstances to justify an extension of time. The Habers' lack of awareness of the breach did not, in the court's view, excuse their failure to meet the statutory deadline. The court also considered the merits of the Habers' compensation claims, but ultimately determined that these claims were time-barred and could not proceed. Consequently, the application for an extension of time was dismissed, and the Habers' claims for compensation were denied.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The application is 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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Haber v Tadrous [2025] NSWCATCD 32
Hearing dates:	9 April 2025
Date of orders:	26 May 2025
Decision date:	26 May 2025
Jurisdiction:	Consumer and Commercial Division
Before:	G A Kinsey General Member
Decision:	(1) The application is dismissed.
Catchwords:	LEASES AND TENANCIES- Tenants claim for compensation for breach of tenancy agreement-time limits applicable to applications for compensation-principles applicable to extension of time -claims for economic and non-economic loss
Legislation Cited:	Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) Residential Tenancies Regulation 2019(NSW)
Cases Cited:	Annette Shailer v Camille Serisier [2016] NSWCATAP 131 Baltic Shipping Co v Dillon [1993] HCA 4 Hyndes v Maddak Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCATAP 302 Jackson v NSW Land and Housing Corporation [2014] NSWCATAP 22 Makowska v St George Community Housing Ltd [2021] NSWSC 287 Pongrass v Small [2021] NSWCATAP 31 Roberts v NSW Aboriginal Housing Office [2017] NSWCATAP 9
Texts Cited:	None
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Chrisovalanda Haber and Anthony Haber (Applicants) Yousiff Tadrous and Mary Tadrous (Respondents)
Representation:	Applicants in person Respondents represented by their agent and Mary Tadrous in person
File Number(s):	2025/00034679
Publication restriction:	Unrestricted

(i)	Reimbursement of cost to install double screen security doors	$1900.00
(ii)	Reimbursement of cost to repair damaged back fence	$155.00
(iii)	Reimbursement of cost of metal side gate	$350.00
(iv)	Reimbursement of cost to repair colorbond fence	$450.00
(v)	Reimbursement of cost of glue to repair ensuite tiles	$20.00
(vi)