Lee v Guo

Case [2017] ACAT 60

ACT CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL



LEE v GUO (Residential Tenancies) [2017] ACAT 60

RT 166/2017

Catchwords:              RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES – compensation – whether there was a breach of peace, comfort and privacy – whether the tenant needs to establish a ‘significant’ interference with the use of the premises – what ‘significant’ means in the context of section 71 of the RT Act – when considering whether there has been a significant interference with her reasonable peace, comfort or privacy in the use of the premises the incidents can be viewed cumulatively

Legislation cited:      ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 ss 7, 48

Residential Tenancies Act 1997 ss 8, 71, 83, standard terms 2, 3, 52, 53, 55, 75, 76, 77, 78, 82

Cases cited:               Baltic Shipping Company v Dillon (1993) 176 CLR 344

Bangura & Fan [2013] ACAT 38

Bills v Trustees for Paul Sevier Practice Super [2016] ACAT 67

CIC Australia Ltd v Australian Capital Territory Planning and Land Authority & Ors (2013) 277 FLR 26

Commonwealth v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd (1992) 174 CLR 64

Constanzo and Laria & Watson [2010] ACAT 79

Hadley v Baxendale 156 ER 145

Hay v Medanic [2010] NSWCTTT 309

Hay v Medanic [2011] NSWCTTT 17

Dangar & Anor v Mansour & Anor [2016] ACAT 61

Huskisson and Roper [2011] ACAT 41

Mansour v Dangar [2017] ACAT 49

Minion and Mann [2011] ACAT 7

Rowling, Neale v Sneesby [2012] NSWCTTT 289

Robinson v Harman [1848] 154 ER 363

Salem & Gizgeez and Abeygunasekara & Jeevanthan [2011] ACAT 9
Worrall v Commissioner for Housing in the ACT [2001] ACTSC 72
Worrall v Commissioner for Housing for the Australia Capital Territory [2002] FCAFC 127

Shkolar and Anor v Thomson [2015] ACAT 21

List of

Texts/Papers cited:    Anforth et al Residential Tenancies Law and Practice: New South Wales (6th edition)

Explanatory Memorandum to the Residential Tenancies Bill 1997

Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum to the Residential Tenancies Bill 1997

Tribunal:                   Senior Member H Robinson

Date of Orders:  14 August 2017

Date of Reasons for Decision:         14 August 2017

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY  )

CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL       )          RT 166/2017

BETWEEN:

SEONG EUN (ALSO KNOWN AS JENNY) LEE

Applicant

AND:

LIN HAI GUO ALSO KNOWN AS LARRY GUO

Respondent

TRIBUNAL:Senior Member H Robinson

DATE:14 August 2017

ORDER

The Tribunal orders that:

1.Judgment for the applicant in the amount of $1,645.00 being $1,500 in compensation for breach of clause 52 of the Standard Terms in the residential tenancy agreement and $145.00 for the filing fee.

………………………………..

Senior Member H Robinson

REASONS FOR DECISION

1.This is an application for compensation for an alleged breach of a residential tenancy agreement by the lessor. The allegations relate to a series of minor breaches, which the tenant argues should be viewed cumulatively as a breach of her right to reasonable peace, comfort and privacy, or ‘quiet enjoyment’ of the premises.

Hearing process

2.The application was heard on 29 May 2017 and 29 June 2017. The applicant tenant represented herself, supported by her…

Continue reading Lee v Guo

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Lee v Guo [2017] ACAT 60
Case
[2017] ACAT 60
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Lee v Guo involved the applicant, Lee, who sought compensation from the respondent, Guo, for breaches of the residential tenancy agreement. The applicant alleged that the respondent had interfered with her reasonable peace, comfort and privacy in the use of the premises. The matter was heard in the Civil Division of the ACT Magistrates Court. The applicant argued that the respondent had breached the agreement by engaging in conduct that disrupted her peace and comfort, and invaded her privacy. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the applicant had failed to establish a significant interference with her use of the premises. The court had to determine whether the respondent's conduct constituted a significant interference with the applicant's peace, comfort and privacy, and if so, whether the applicant was entitled to compensation under section 71 of the Residential Tenancies Act. The court found that the respondent's conduct constituted a significant interference with the applicant's peace, comfort and privacy, and that the applicant was entitled to compensation. The court held that when considering whether there had been a significant interference with the applicant's reasonable peace, comfort or privacy in the use of the premises, the incidents could be viewed cumulatively. The court also noted that the term 'significant' in the context of section 71 of the RT Act should be given its ordinary meaning and should not be interpreted narrowly. The court ordered that judgment be entered in favour of the applicant in the amount of $1,645.00, being $1,500 in compensation for breach of clause 52 of the Standard Terms in the residential tenancy agreement and $145.00 for the filing fee.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Judgment for the applicant in the amount of $1,645.00 being $1,500 in compensation for breach of clause 52 of the Standard Terms in the residential tenancy agreement and $145.00 for the filing fee.

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.