Moffatt v Muscat

Case [2023] NSWCATCD 13


Civil and Administrative Tribunal


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Moffatt v Muscat [2023] NSWCATCD 13
Hearing dates: 12 January 2023
Date of orders: 17 January 2023
Decision date: 17 January 2023
Jurisdiction:Consumer and Commercial Division
Before: P French, Senior Member
Decision:

(1) The landlords, Frank Muscat and Robert Muscat must cause the undertaking of the following work in a proper and workmanlike manner before 28 February 2023:

(a) Permanently disconnect the tank from the water supply from the local water course.

(b) Establish and maintain a filtration system at the top of the tank that ensures that only clean rainwater enters the tank.

(c) Empty all water from the tank.

(d) Thoroughly clean and sanitise the interior of the tank.

(e) Upon completion of the above, fill the tank with clean water suitable for drinking ensuring that it remains full to at least 50% capacity at all times.

(2) The landlords, Frank Muscat and Robert Muscat must pay the tenant, Hailee Moffatt, $100.00 immediately.

(3) The application is otherwise dismissed.

Catchwords:

LEASES AND TENANCIES - Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) – obligations of tenant and landlord – landlord’s general obligations – obligation to provide premises in a state fit for habitation – obligation to maintain premises in a reasonable state of repair

Legislation Cited:

Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) – s 41

Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) – ss 39, 41, 52, 63, 65, 187, 190

Residential Tenancies Amendment (Review) Act 2018 (NSW); Schedule 1

Residential Tenancies Regulation 2019 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Commonwealth v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd [1991] HCA 54; (1992) 174 CLR 64

De Soleil v Palmhide P/L [2010] NSWCTTT 464

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

Proudfoot v Hart (1890) 25 QBD 42

Texts Cited:

Legislative Assembly Hansard 28 September 2018, Residential Tenancies Amendment (Review) Bill 2018, Second Reading Speech

Category:Principal judgment
Parties:

Hailee Moffatt (Applicant)

Frank Muscat (First Respondent)
Robert Muscat (Second Respondent)
Representation:

Hailee Moffatt (Self-represented)

Victoria Muscat (First and Second Respondents)
Joanne Muscat (First and Second Respondents)
File Number(s): RT 22/45594
Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

  1. This is an application by Hailee Moffat (the tenant) for orders pursuant to sections 52, 63, 187 and 190 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (the Act) that would require Frank and Robert Muscat (the landlords) to pay her $6,000.00 (or some greater sum as determined by the Tribunal) for damage and loss she contends she has incurred because of the failure of the landlords to fulfill their general obligations to pass possession of the premises to her in a state fit for habitation and to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. Specifically, the tenant contends that the landlord failed to ensure that there was a supply of clean water to the premises. The loss she contends for is the cost of purchase of fresh drinking water over the six-and-a-half year period of the tenancy. The tenant also applies for orders…

Continue reading Moffatt v Muscat

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Moffatt v Muscat [2023] NSWCATCD 13
Case
[2023] NSWCATCD 13
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Moffatt v Muscat involved a dispute between the tenant, Hailee Moffatt, and the landlords, Frank Muscat and Robert Muscat, under the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW). The crux of the matter was the landlords' failure to maintain the property in a habitable condition, specifically concerning the water tank used for the property's water supply. Moffatt claimed that the water tank was contaminated and not fit for human consumption, leading to her seeking relief from the tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the tribunal were whether the landlords had breached their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act by failing to provide the property in a state fit for habitation and maintain it in a reasonable state of repair. The tribunal needed to determine if the contamination of the water tank constituted a breach of these obligations and, if so, what remedies were appropriate.

The tribunal found that the landlords had indeed breached their obligations. The evidence presented showed that the water tank was contaminated, posing a significant health risk to the tenant. The tribunal emphasised the landlords' duty to provide premises in a state fit for habitation and to maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair. Given the severity of the contamination and the potential health risks, the tribunal ordered specific remedial actions, including the disconnection of the tank from the water supply, the establishment of a filtration system, the cleaning and sanitisation of the tank, and the refilling of the tank with clean, potable water. Additionally, the tribunal ordered the landlords to pay Moffatt $100.00 for the inconvenience and distress caused by the breach.

The tribunal dismissed any other claims made by Moffatt. The final orders required the landlords to undertake the specified remedial actions by a set date and to pay Moffatt the stipulated amount.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The landlords, Frank Muscat and Robert Muscat must cause the undertaking of the following work in a proper and workmanlike manner before 28 February 2023:

(a) Permanently disconnect the tank from the water supply from the local water course.

(b) Establish and maintain a filtration system at the top of the tank that ensures that only clean rainwater enters the tank.

(c) Empty all water from the tank.

(d) Thoroughly clean and sanitise the interior of the tank.

(e) Upon completion of the above, fill the tank with clean water suitable for drinking ensuring that it remains full to at least 50% capacity at all times.

(2) The landlords, Frank Muscat and Robert Muscat must pay the tenant, Hailee Moffatt, $100.00 immediately.

(3) The application is otherwise dismissed.

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.