Miskin v Munjal & Anor (Residential Tenancies)

In the case of Miskin v Munjal & Anor, the applicant, Miskin, sought compensation for non-economic loss under section 83(1)(d) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 ACT. The claim arose from breaches of Clauses 52, 54, 55, 57, and 59, which pertain to the reasonable state of repair of the property and the timely completion of repairs. The applicant alleged that several issues, including mould and cracked or damaged tiles, were present before the lease began and were not rectified by the respondents. These pre-existing issues, which are the responsibility of the owner and not the tenant, compounded the problem as several repairs took between 3-4 months to be completed. The Tribunal was tasked with determining whether the breaches warranted compensation and, if so, the appropriate amount.

The primary legal issue the Tribunal had to address was whether the breaches of the aforementioned clauses justified an award of compensation for non-economic loss. The applicant argued that the prolonged issues with the property's state of repair significantly affected their living conditions, leading to stress and discomfort. The respondents, on the other hand, contended that the delays were not entirely within their control and that they had made reasonable efforts to address the issues. The Tribunal needed to assess the severity and impact of the breaches on the applicant's living conditions and determine whether these warranted compensation under the Act.

In its decision, the Tribunal found that the respondents did breach the clauses concerning the reasonable state of repair and the timely completion of repairs. The pre-existing issues that were not addressed before the lease began, combined with the lengthy delays in fixing the problems, amounted to significant breaches. The Tribunal accepted that these breaches caused the applicant non-economic loss in the form of stress and discomfort. Consequently, the Tribunal ordered the respondents to pay the applicant $5,714 in compensation. The payment was to be made within one month of the date of the orders.

The final orders of the Tribunal were that the respondents are to pay the applicant $5,714 and that payment is to be made within one month of the date of these orders. This decision underscores the importance of landlords ensuring that properties are in a reasonable state of repair before a lease begins and that any necessary repairs are completed in a timely manner. Failure to do so can result in significant consequences, including the need to compensate the tenant for non-economic loss.