Imran v Zhang

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Imran v Zhang [2023] NSWCATCD 159

Hearing dates:

17 November 2023

Date of orders:

20 December 2023

Decision date:

20 December 2023

Jurisdiction:

Consumer and Commercial Division

Before:

Dr K M George, General Member

Decision:

1. The respondent Xiaoyu Zhang is to pay the applicants Muhammad Imran and Bushra Noor the amount of $5,500.00 on or before 4 January 2024.

Catchwords:

LEASES AND TENANCIES - Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) - Landlord’s obligation to repair and maintain – Fit for habitation – Compensation

Legislation Cited:

Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)

Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)

Residential Tenancies Regulation 2019 (NSW)

Strata Schemes Management Act2015 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Aceti v Burhan Pty Ltd t/as Garlicks Heating and Cooling [2015] NSWCATAP 55

Austin v Bonney [1999] QCA 8

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336

De Soleil v Palmhide P/L [2010] NSWCTTT 464

Hadley v Baxendale [1854] 9 Ex 341

Hall v Hawkins [2015] NSWCATAP 197

Jackson v NSW Land and Housing Corporation [2014] NSWCATAP 22

Menashi v Ly [1997] NSWRT 16

Northern Sandblasting Pty Ltd v Harris (1997) 146 ALJR 254

Proudfoot v Hart (1890) 25 QBD 25

Roberts v NSW Aboriginal Housing Office [2017] NSWCATAP 9

Texts Cited:

Nil

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Muhammad Imran and Bushra Noor (Applicants)
Xiaoyu Zhang (Respondent)

Representation:

Muhammad Imran and Bushra Noor - self represented (Applicants)
Dean Stojanovski – Managing Agent (Respondent)

File Number(s):

2023/00384035

Publication restriction:

Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

1. The applicants are the tenants of an apartment in Bankstown. Their application to the Tribunal is dated 20 July 2023.

2. The tenants appeared in person at the hearing. They relied on one bundle of documents which were admitted into evidence, subject to weight and relevance and marked as Exhibit T.

3. Mr Strojanovski appeared on behalf of the landlord/ respondent, pursuant to a Managing Agents Agreement. He relied on one bundle of documents which were admitted into evidence, subject to weight and relevance and marked as Exhibit L. Additionally, and with the leave of the Tribunal, he provided by email a copy of the ingoing condition report.

4. Mr Imran, Ms Noor and Mr Strojanovski gave sworn oral evidence to the Tribunal.

5. The tenants claim that the landlord failed to repair a leak in the bathroom ceiling which was present at the start of the tenancy on 8 December 2022. It is common ground between the parties that the leak emanated from an upstairs bathroom and thus occurred on the common property of the Strata Scheme.

6. The tenants seek compensation of $19,320.00. The claim is quantified as a full rent rebate of $420.00 per week over 10 months. At the hearing the Tribunal explained that its jurisdictional limit is $15,000.00.

7. The breach relied on by the tenants is a continuing breach by the landlord of his obligations, and an extension of time to bring the claim is unnecessary.

8. If I am wrong about that, to the extent an extension of time…