Knowles v Bollore SA; Bollore SA v Knowles

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Knowles v Bollore SA; Bollore SA v Knowles [2016] NSWCATCD 39
Hearing dates:	10 December 2015
Decision date:	11 May 2016
Jurisdiction:	Consumer and Commercial Division
Before:	T Simon, Senior Member
Decision:	Suzanne Knowles is to pay Bollore SA the amount of $16,703.30 immediately.
Legislation Cited:	Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) Residential Tenancies Regulation 2010
Cases Cited:	Fitzpatrick v Wu (RTT01/16425) Harris v Hill; Hill v Harris; [2015] NSWCATCD 84 Hyder Consulting (Aust) Pty Ltd v Wlh Wilmemsen Agency Pty Ltd and Anor [2001] NSWCA 313 (‘Hyder Consulting’)
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Bollore SA (tenant/respondent) in RT 15/51940 Suzanne Knowles (landlord/applicant) in RT 15/51940   Suzanne Knowles (landlord/respondent) in RT 15/37621 Bollore SA (tenant/applicant) in RT 15/37621
Representation:	M Crocher solicitor for the tenant S Knowles in person
File Number(s):	RT 15/51940RT 15/37621
Publication restriction:	Unrestricted

Reasons for the Decision

Background to the Matter

1. An application was received from the tenant by the Tribunal on 9 June 2015. The tenant was seeking the return of her bond. Orders were initially made in favour of the tenant in absence of the landlord for an amount of $21,001.51. The landlord subsequently applied for a set-aside of the orders and was successful. The landlord has also made an application which was received on 11 September 2015 seeking payment of the bond to her. The landlord is seeking for the following damages:

1. $19,591.06 in total to replace the carpet;

2. $160.00 for pool maintenance;

3. $138.00 for outstanding garden maintenance;

4. $13,000.00 to replace curtains (the tenant withdrew that part of the claim at hearing);

5. $380.00 to clean glass.

2. The landlord presently holds the bond and she claimed the bond from the rental bond board on or about 3 June 2015 and the bond was paid in full to her.

3. The two applications deal with the same issues and have been dealt with together. For ease of reference the parties will be referred to as landlord and tenant.

4. The parties had the opportunity to exchange documents. The landlord provided her documents in a bundle which were received by the Tribunal on 6 October 2016. At hearing the landlord was also seeking to rely on further documents in reply and that was not objected to by the tenant at the hearing. The tenant provided a folder of documents on 21 October and two further statutory declarations. The Tribunal confirmed that each party had received the other party’s documents and had been given an opportunity to view them. All the documents received by the Tribunal from the parties have been considered in coming to this decision.

5. The landlord provided a copy of a residential tenancy agreement between the parties dated 25 September 2014. In accordance with the agreement rent was $22,813.00 per month and the term of the agreement was for 7 months from 1 October 2014 to 1 May 2015. A bond of $21,000.00 was lodged with the rental bond board and has since been paid out to the…