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 2019Date 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
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:
Solicitors:
Mr S.J. McMahon (Plaintiff)
Mr J McKenzie (Defendant)
Laycock Burke Castaldi Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Priest Legal (Defendant)
File Number(s): 17/375351 Publication restriction: N/A
Judgment
-
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].
-
The Plaintiff in his case gave evidence himself and also called his wife, Ms Lydia Pursell, who resided with him at the premises.
-
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
- AGLC
- Pursell v Eversham Close Pty Ltd [2020] NSWDC 372
- Case
- [2020] NSWDC 372
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.