Catchwords: APPEAL – residential tenancies – powers of appeal tribunal – appeal process – whether there was a legal impediment to the use of the premises for residential purposes – whether by lack of postal, internet or telephone services the lessors permitted interference with the tenants’ quiet enjoyment – amount of compensation
1.Order 3 of the Orders of 7 April 2016 is amended to replace ‘$4800’with ‘$3000’.
………………………………..
Presidential Member M-T Daniel
REASONS FOR DECISION
1.On 7 April 2016 a senior member of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) made orders terminating a tenancy agreement between the parties and requiring the lessors to pay $4800 compensation to the tenants.[1] The compensation decision is the subject of this appeal.
2.The orders were made after a short hearing, on the first return…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Mansour v Dangar
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Mansour v Dangar [2017] ACAT 49
Case
[2017] ACAT 49
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Mansour v Dangar, the appeal arose from a decision of the Residential Tenancies Tribunal of Queensland. The dispute involved the tenants, the Mansours, who sought to challenge a decision regarding compensation payable to them for alleged breaches of their residential tenancy agreement by the Dangars, the property owners. The tenants claimed they were denied quiet enjoyment of the premises due to a lack of postal, internet, and telephone services, which they argued were critical for their employment and lifestyle.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the lack of essential services constituted a breach of the tenants' quiet enjoyment and, if so, what compensation was appropriate. The tenants argued that the absence of these services significantly interfered with their use and enjoyment of the property, while the property owners contended that the services were not necessary for residential purposes and thus not covered by the tenancy agreement.
The court found that the lack of postal, internet, and telephone services did not constitute a breach of the tenancy agreement as these services were not integral to the residential use of the premises. The court concluded that the absence of these services did not amount to a legal impediment to the use of the premises for residential purposes. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the compensation amount awarded to the tenants was reduced from $4800 to $3000.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Tribunal orders that:
1. Order 3 of the Orders of 7 April 2016 is amended to replace ‘$4800’with ‘$3000’.