Harada v Barnes & Anor

Harada was the lessor of residential premises that was subject to a Residential Tenancy Agreement with Barnes as the tenant. Barnes terminated the tenancy and sought to recover the bond paid to Harada. Harada sought to recover unpaid rent. The dispute was heard in the Civil and Administrative Tribunal, and the primary judge found in favour of Barnes and dismissed Harada’s claim. Harada appealed to the Supreme Court, which found in favour of Harada and ordered Barnes to pay the unpaid rent. Barnes appealed the primary decision. The issues for determination were whether Harada was in breach of clause 54 of the standard residential tenancy terms at the commencement of the tenancy by failing to provide premises that were reasonably clean, in a reasonable state of repair and secure, and whether Harada’s breaches entitled Barnes to terminate the tenancy under clauses 90 and 91 of the Act. The Supreme Court found that the premises were not reasonably clean, not in a reasonable state of repair and not secure at the commencement of the tenancy, and that Barnes was entitled to terminate the tenancy. The Court found that the breaches did not entitle Barnes to terminate the tenancy, as alternatives to termination were available. The appeal was dismissed.