Morgan v Turner Real Estate - [2019] SADC 34

District Court of South Australia
(Civil: Minor Civil Review)
MORGAN v TURNER REAL ESTATE
[2019] SADC 34
Judgment of His Honour Judge Durrant (ex tempore)
22 March 2019
LANDLORD AND TENANT - RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES LEGISLATION - OBLIGATIONS, PROHIBITED MATTERS AND PROTECTION FOR LESSEES - RENTAL BONDS OR SECURITY DEPOSITS
Minor Civil Review
Magistrates Court found a breach of Residential Tenancy Agreement by tenant due to vacation of premises prior to expiry of term. Shortfall of rent and damages payable and bond forfeited. Tenant alleged failure to repair premises constituted repudiation by landlord and no rent or damages payable.
Held: Application for Review dismissed.
No order for costs.
Magistrates Court Act s38; Residential Tenancies Act ss 68, 85 & 88, referred to.
Northern Sandblasting Pty Ltd v Harris [1996] 188 CLR 313, considered.

MORGAN v TURNER REAL ESTATE
[2019] SADC 34
An application for review

This matter comes before the Court by way of an application to review a minor civil decision dated 3 January 2019. Regard has been had to s.38 of the Magistrates Court Act and, in particular, s.38(8) whereby this decision on review is final and not subject to appeal. As allowed by s.38 of the Magistrates Court Act, this hearing has taken the form of an inquiry by the Court into the matters in dispute between the parties rather than an adversarial contest between the parties. This Court, in undertaking this review, must act according to equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case without regard to technicalities and legal forms.
I have heard today from both parties, who are self-represented. I commend both Mr Morgan and Ms Daken from Turner Real Estate for their conduct today and for the assistance that they have provided the Court. Both parties have indicated that there are no further matters they wish to put.
On 30 November 2015, Mr Wayne Morgan and Mrs Tyler Morgan, as tenants, entered into a Residential Property Tenancy Agreement with the landlords, Preetinder Singh and Harmita Kaur, for the lease of 5 Sunset Circuit, Walkley Heights.
The tenancy was uneventful, other than in 2017 when tree roots disturbed the paving on the pathway of the premises leading from the driveway to the front door. It is common ground that tree roots caused an unevenness in the pathway and that such issue needed to be addressed by the landlords. The tenants quite properly raised the need for repair and Ms Daken, on behalf of the property manager for the landlords, took steps to engage an arborist to advise as to how the root disturbance could be best addressed.
Advice was received to poison the root system with the expectation a composting of the roots would occur and a return to evenness of the pavers would be achieved. With the cooperation of the tenants, poison was administered to the roots in 2017. Reasonable and polite discussions continued between the tenants and manager but the problem of unevenness of the pavers remained…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Morgan v Turner Real Estate and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2019] SADC 34
Decision Date: 22 March 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Morgan v Turner Real Estate was heard by the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The tenant, Mr. Morgan, brought an action against his former landlord, Turner Real Estate, seeking the return of his rental bond and additional damages for alleged breaches of tenancy laws. The dispute centred around the landlord's handling of the rental bond and their compliance with the Residential Tenancies Act 2010. Mr. Morgan claimed that Turner Real Estate failed to provide the required documentation for the bond and returned the bond late. The central legal issues were whether Turner Real Estate complied with the legislative requirements for the handling of rental bonds and if they breached the Residential Tenancies Act by returning the bond late. The Tribunal found that Turner Real Estate failed to provide the necessary documentation for the bond within the specified timeframe. The Tribunal held that the landlord's failure to furnish the prescribed information was a breach of the Act. Additionally, the Tribunal determined that the landlord's delay in returning the bond constituted a further breach. Consequently, the Tribunal ordered Turner Real Estate to pay Mr. Morgan his rental bond in full, along with additional damages for the delay in its return. The Tribunal emphasised the importance of landlords adhering to the statutory obligations regarding rental bonds to protect tenants' rights and ensure timely resolution of disputes.

Orders