Maroney v Bullard
Case
•
[2016] ACAT 33
•22 April 2016
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Maroney v Bullard [2016] ACAT 33
[2016] ACAT 33
22 April 2016
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Maroney v Bullard, the parties were involved in a dispute concerning a rental bond held by the Office of Rental Bonds in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute arose from a residential tenancy where the tenants claimed that certain tenant improvements should be exempted from the requirement to make good the property at the end of the lease. They also argued that any damage to the property was due to fair wear and tear. The court was required to determine whether the tenants were entitled to have the bond released in full, or whether the lessor was entitled to a deduction from the bond for damages and cleaning costs.
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the tenants' improvements were exempt from the make-good requirement and if the damage observed was due to fair wear and tear. The court needed to distinguish between the same state of cleanliness and the same condition, fair wear and tear excepted, at the end of the lease. The tenants argued that since the property was in the same state of cleanliness, albeit with some wear and tear, they should be entitled to the full bond. The lessor, on the other hand, argued that the damage observed was beyond fair wear and tear and therefore, the tenants should be liable for compensation.
The court found that the tenants' improvements were not exempt from the make-good requirement and that some of the damage observed was not due to fair wear and tear. The court clarified that the requirement to leave the premises in the same condition, fair wear and tear excepted, means that the property should be in the same condition as when the lease commenced, excluding normal wear and tear. The court held that the tenants were liable for compensation for the damage and for cleaning costs, as the property was not in the same condition as it was at the start of the lease. Accordingly, the court ordered that the tenants pay the lessor $768 and directed the Office of Rental Bonds to release $768 to the lessor and the balance of the bond to the tenants.
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the tenants' improvements were exempt from the make-good requirement and if the damage observed was due to fair wear and tear. The court needed to distinguish between the same state of cleanliness and the same condition, fair wear and tear excepted, at the end of the lease. The tenants argued that since the property was in the same state of cleanliness, albeit with some wear and tear, they should be entitled to the full bond. The lessor, on the other hand, argued that the damage observed was beyond fair wear and tear and therefore, the tenants should be liable for compensation.
The court found that the tenants' improvements were not exempt from the make-good requirement and that some of the damage observed was not due to fair wear and tear. The court clarified that the requirement to leave the premises in the same condition, fair wear and tear excepted, means that the property should be in the same condition as when the lease commenced, excluding normal wear and tear. The court held that the tenants were liable for compensation for the damage and for cleaning costs, as the property was not in the same condition as it was at the start of the lease. Accordingly, the court ordered that the tenants pay the lessor $768 and directed the Office of Rental Bonds to release $768 to the lessor and the balance of the bond to the tenants.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Property Law
Legal Concepts
-
Breach of Contract
-
Damages
-
Compensatory Damages
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Maroney v Bullard [2016] ACAT 33
Most Recent Citation
Nisar v Property Partners Canberra Pty Ltd (Civil Dispute & Residential Tenancies) [2024] ACAT 44
Cases Cited
4
Statutory Material Cited
1
Tabcorp Holdings Ltd v Bowen Investments Pty Ltd
[2009] HCA 8
Tabcorp Holdings Ltd v Bowen Investments Pty Ltd
[2009] HCA 8
JSM Management Pty Ltd v QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd
[2011] VSC 339