Pursell v Eversham Close Pty Ltd

Case [2020] NSWDC 372


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Pursell v Eversham Close Pty Ltd [2020] NSWDC 372
Hearing dates: 9, 10, 11 October 2019
Plaintiff’s Supplementary Submissions – 15 October 2019
Defendant’s response to Supplementary Submissions – 21 October 2019
Date of orders: 13 February 2020
Decision date: 13 February 2020
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Hatzistergos DCJ
Decision:

Verdict for the Plaintiff (see [224])

Catchwords:

LEASES AND TENANCIES — Strata title — Leasehold strata scheme — Common property — Maintenance and repair of common property — Obligations of owner and occupiers — Continual water damage — Renewal of lease despite water damage

RESIDENTIAL AGREEMENT — Purported breach of lease — Failure to fix damaged property — Whether defendants failed to act reasonably in the circumstances — Whether making an application under s 140 of the SSMA Act 1996 would have been a reasonable step in fixing property

Legislation Cited:

Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW), ss 3, 13, 43(2), 63(2), 65

Residential Tenancies Regulation 2010 (NSW)

Strata Schemes Management Act 1996 (NSW), ss 62, 138, 140, 150

Cases Cited:

Craig Kentell v Oliver Steele; Oliver Steele v Craig Kentell [2014] NSWCATCD 102

Edex International Holdings Pty Ltd v Marmalade Films Pty Ltd [2003] NSWCA 8; (2003) 56 NSWLR 63

Italia Ceramics International Super Ltd and Anor v CM Corporation Pty Ltd [2019] SASCFC54

Lee v Fuzessery [2010] NSWCTTT 205

Matthew Hanney and Belinda Smiley v Lachlan McCabe and Amanda Toshack [2014] NSWCATCD 239

Northern Sandblasting Pty Ltd v Harris (1997) 188 CLR 313; (1997) 146 ALR 572

Reiss v Helson [2001] NSWSC 486

Timms and Simpson v Adams [2012] NSWCTT 53

Wang v Abdel-Messih [2017] NSWCATCD 11

Texts Cited:

Anforth, Allan, Peter Christensen, Christopher Adkins, Residential Tenancies Law and Practice New South Wales (Federation Press, 7th ed, 2017)

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Bruce Alan Pursell (Plaintiff)
Eversham Close Pty Ltd (Defendant)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr S.J. McMahon (Plaintiff)
Mr J McKenzie (Defendant)

Solicitors:
Laycock Burke Castaldi Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Priest Legal (Defendant)
File Number(s): 17/375351
Publication restriction: N/A

Judgment

  1. The Plaintiff was the tenant of property owned by the Defendant located at 401/22 Mort Street Port Macquarie in a building known as the Icon between February 2013 and December 2016 (the property). By all accounts it was a beautifully positioned apartment which had some appeal to the Plaintiff and his wife, who resided in another unit in the building prior to 2013. [1] Notwithstanding this their occupancy was, from time to time, disturbed principally by water ingress. Following the tenancy coming to an end and having paid all rent otherwise due, the Plaintiff brings these proceedings claiming damages.

    1. Exhibit A, Affidavit of Bruce Pursell at [10] and [52].

  2. The Plaintiff in his case gave evidence himself and also called his wife, Ms Lydia Pursell, who resided with him at the premises.

  3. The Defendant was the Landlord of the property. In its case it called Mr John Constant, a director of the Defendant, [2] as well as his wife Ms…

Continue reading Pursell v Eversham Close Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Pursell v Eversham Close Pty Ltd [2020] NSWDC 372
Case
[2020] NSWDC 372
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Pursell v Eversham Close Pty Ltd involved a dispute between the Plaintiff, Pursell, and the Defendant, Eversham Close Pty Ltd, concerning the maintenance of common property in a strata title scheme. Pursell leased a unit in a building managed by Eversham Close, which experienced continual water damage. Despite this, the lease was renewed without the issue being resolved. The matter was brought before the court to determine whether Eversham Close had a duty to maintain the common property and whether they had breached any obligations under the Strata Schemes Management Act 1996 (SSMA Act 1996).

The central legal issues in the case were whether Eversham Close, as the owner of the strata scheme, had failed to act reasonably in maintaining the common property and whether they were obligated to take steps to repair the property under the SSMA Act 1996. Specifically, the court needed to decide if applying for an order under section 140 of the SSMA Act 1996 would have been a reasonable step in addressing the water damage issue.

In determining the outcome, the court examined the obligations of Eversham Close as the owner of the strata scheme and the reasonable steps they should have taken to address the ongoing water damage. The court concluded that Eversham Close had indeed failed to act reasonably by not addressing the continual water damage, despite being aware of the issue. The court further found that making an application under section 140 of the SSMA Act 1996 would have been a reasonable step in addressing the problem. Consequently, the court found in favour of the Plaintiff, Pursell, ruling that Eversham Close had breached their obligations under the SSMA Act 1996.

The court ordered a verdict for the Plaintiff, Pursell, and awarded damages for the harm suffered due to the continual water damage. The court's decision highlighted the importance of strata owners taking their maintenance responsibilities seriously and ensuring that common property is kept in a reasonable state of repair. The ruling serves as a reminder to all parties involved in strata title schemes of their legal obligations and the consequences of failing to uphold them.

Orders

Orders of the court

Verdict for the Plaintiff (see [224])

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.