Kwok v Natarajan

Case [2025] NSWCATCD 80

Civil and Administrative Tribunal


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Kwok v Natarajan [2025] NSWCATCD 80
Hearing dates: 20 June 2025
Date of orders: 8 July 2025
Decision date: 08 July 2025
Jurisdiction:Consumer and Commercial Division
Before: JA Rose, Senior Member
Decision:

(1)   The Tribunal determines that the rent increase from $700 per week to $900 per week is excessive.

(2)   The Tribunal orders that the rent shall not exceed the sum of $775 per week from 11 January 2025 to 12 April 2025.

(3)   The Tribunal orders the landlord to repay to the tenant the amount by which the rent paid by the tenant to the landlord for the period specified in order (2) above has exceeded the amount determined in that order.

(4)   The parties have liberty to relist the proceeding to determine the amount (if any) owing by the landlord to the tenant under order (3) above, within 30 days from the date of these orders.

(5)   The remainder of the claim in the proceeding is dismissed because the Tribunal is not satisfied to the civil standard (being the balance of probabilities) on the material before it that there are grounds for the Tribunal to make the other orders sought by the applicant tenant.

Catchwords:

LEASES AND TENANCIES — Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) — NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal — Jurisdiction and power — Limitations on claims for compensation in respect of a breach of a residential tenancy agreement

LEASES AND TENANCIES — Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) — Rent — Excessive rent

LEASES AND TENANCIES — Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) — Repairs — Landlord’s duty — Repairs to common property not forming part of the residential premises

LEASES AND TENANCIES — Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) — Rent — Rent increases — Excessive rent increase

Legislation Cited:

Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)

Residential Tenancies Act 1995 (NSW)

Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW)

Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW)

Residential Tenancies Regulation 2019 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Bhandari v Laming [2015] NSWCATAP 224

De Chazol v Scala [2010] NSWCTTT 135

Dimunova v Vega [2017] NSWCATAP 5

Dupont and Rowe v Lawrence [1997] NSWRT 213.

George v Davies [2000] ACTRTT 2.

Hanney v McCabe Toshack [2014] NSWCATCD 239

Hendy v Parsons [2024] NSWCATCD 25

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

Kolodziej v Ali & Anor (Appeal) [2021] ACAT 123

Kwok v Tahiri [2015] NSWCATAP 244

Lee v Fuzessery (Tenancy) [2010] NSWCTTT 205

McCartney v Wood [2023] NSWCATAP 131

Nicholson v Webber [2023] NSWCATCD 65

Northern Sandblasting Pty Ltd v Harris (1997) 188 CLR 313

Pan v Malveholm [2021] NSWCATAP 101

Pursell v Eversham Close Pty Ltd [2020] NSWDC 372

Reiss & Anor v Helson & 2 Ors [2001] NSWSC 486

Sewell v Zvirblis [2022] NSWCATAP 337

Shrestha v Crandell Pty Ltd [2010] NSWCTTT 240

Warner v Hung (No 2) (2011) 297 ALR 56; [2011] FCA 1123

Texts Cited:

Nil

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Aaron Kwok (Applicant)
Karthik Natarajan…

Continue reading Kwok v Natarajan

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Kwok v Natarajan [2025] NSWCATCD 80
Case
[2025] NSWCATCD 80
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Kwok v Natarajan, the applicant, a tenant, brought proceedings against the respondent, the landlord, to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The tenant sought relief from an excessive rent increase, and compensation for the landlord's failure to perform repairs to common property. The tenant also sought a declaration that the rent was excessive. The tribunal had jurisdiction pursuant to the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW). The legal issues that the tribunal had to decide were whether the rent increase was excessive, whether the landlord had breached the tenancy agreement by failing to perform repairs to common property, and whether the tenant was entitled to compensation. The tribunal found that the rent increase from $700 per week to $900 per week was excessive and ordered that the rent shall not exceed the sum of $775 per week from 11 January 2025 to 12 April 2025. The tribunal also found that the landlord was not in breach of the tenancy agreement by failing to perform repairs to common property as it did not form part of the residential premises. The tribunal dismissed the remainder of the claim because it was not satisfied to the civil standard that there were grounds for the tribunal to make the other orders sought by the tenant.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The Tribunal determines that the rent increase from $700 per week to $900 per week is excessive.

(2) The Tribunal orders that the rent shall not exceed the sum of $775 per week from 11 January 2025 to 12 April 2025.

(3) The Tribunal orders the landlord to repay to the tenant the amount by which the rent paid by the tenant to the landlord for the period specified in order (2) above has exceeded the amount determined in that order.

(4) The parties have liberty to relist the proceeding to determine the amount (if any) owing by the landlord to the tenant under order (3) above, within 30 days from the date of these orders.

(5) The remainder of the claim in the proceeding is dismissed because the Tribunal is not satisfied to the civil standard (being the balance of probabilities) on the material before it that there are grounds for the Tribunal to make the other orders sought by the applicant tenant.

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.