Ramjan v Tang - [2022] NSWCATCD 98

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Ramjan v Tang [2022] NSWCATCD 98
Hearing dates: 20 June 2022
Date of orders: 20 and 29 June 2022
Decision date: 30 June 2022
Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division
Before: P French, Senior Member
Decision:
Orders made on 20 June 2022:
(1) The respondent, Davinia Elaine Tang, is to cause the undertaking of the following work in a proper and workmanlike manner on or before 11 July 2022:
Details of Work order:
(a) engage a mould expert to remove mould from the apartment and treat the apartment to prevent mould regrowth;
(b) remove and replace the bedroom carpet and its underlay with an equivalent quality carpet and underlay;
(c) replace the bedroom blinds (4) with blinds of an equivalent quality;
(d) repair and repaint the hallway wall where a hole has been cut during a water leak investigation;
(e) upon completion of items (a) to (d) provide a general clean of the apartment to remove dust, detritus and marks caused by the water ingress, contractor attendances at the premises, and remedial works.
Orders made on 28 June 2022:
(2) The rent payable for the residential premises is excessive and is not to exceed $325.00 per week from 23 February 2022 until order (1) of these orders has been complied with or 22 February 2023 whichever occurs first.
(3) Order (2) is liquidated up to the date of the hearing. The landlord, Davinia Elaine Tang, must pay the tenants, Rosemarie Ramjan and Mitchell Gilmour, $4,135.70 immediately.
(4) The amount specified in order (3) is to be applied as a credit to the tenants’ rent account. A money order is not to issue in relation to order (3).
(5) The landlord, Davinia Elaine Tang, must pay the tenants, Rosemarie Ramjan and Mitchell Gilmour, $2,600.00 immediately. A money order may issue in relation to this order.
(6) The tenants’ application for an order pursuant to s 65(5) of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 that rent be paid to the Tribunal until order (1) is complied with is refused.

Catchwords:
LEASES AND TENANCIES - Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) – rights and obligations of landlords and tenants – maintenance of premises in a reasonable state of repair
LEASES AND TENANCIES – Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) – remedies – order for repair - excessive rent order – compensation for disappointment and distress

Legislation Cited:
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW)
Residential Tenancies Regulation 2019 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Austin v Bonney [1999] QCA 8
Campbell v Eastern Zone Aboriginal Housing and Community Association [1998] NSWRT
Makowska v St George Community Housing Ltd [2021] NSWSC 287
Northern Sandblasting P/L v Harris (1997) 188 CLR 313
Roberts v Aboriginal Housing Office [2017] NSWCATAP 9
Southwark London Borough Council v Tanner [2001] 1 AC 1
Worrall v Commissioner for Housing ACT [2002] FCAFC 127

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Rosemarie Ramjan (First Applicant)
Mitchell Gilmour (Second Applicant)
Davinia Elaine Tang…

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 Ramjan v Tang 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: [2022] NSWCATCD 98
Decision Date: 30 June 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Ramjan v Tang, the applicant tenants, Rosemarie Ramjan and Mitchell Gilmour, sought relief from the Residential Tenancies Tribunal in respect of a rental property owned by the respondent, Davinia Elaine Tang. The tenants claimed that the property was not maintained in a reasonable state of repair, and that the rent was excessive. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the landlord had breached the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) and, if so, what remedies were appropriate.

The central legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the landlord had failed to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair and whether the rent charged was excessive. The Tribunal found that the landlord had breached the Act by failing to maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair, particularly in relation to mould remediation, carpet replacement, and repairs to the hallway. The Tribunal also found that the rent was excessive, setting a new weekly rent of $325.00, effective from 23 February 2022. The Tribunal ordered the landlord to undertake specific remedial works, including engaging a mould expert, replacing the bedroom carpet, repairing the hallway, and providing a general clean of the premises.

In making its orders, the Tribunal considered the evidence presented by both parties and the obligations of landlords and tenants under the Act. The Tribunal found that the landlord had not fulfilled her obligations to maintain the premises, and that the tenants had suffered disappointment and distress as a result. The Tribunal ordered the landlord to undertake the specified remedial works and to pay compensation to the tenants for the excessive rent charged. The Tribunal also ordered the landlord to pay an immediate sum of $2,600.00 to the tenants, with the option for the tenants to issue a money order if the payment was not made. The Tribunal refused the tenants' application for an order that rent be paid to the Tribunal until the remedial works were completed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Orders made on 20 June 2022:

(1) The respondent, Davinia Elaine Tang, is to cause the undertaking of the following work in a proper and workmanlike manner on or before 11 July 2022:

Details of Work order:

(a) engage a mould expert to remove mould from the apartment and treat the apartment to prevent mould regrowth;

(b) remove and replace the bedroom carpet and its underlay with an equivalent quality carpet and underlay;

(d) repair and repaint the hallway wall where a hole has been cut during a water leak investigation;

(e) upon completion of items (a) to (d) provide a general clean of the apartment to remove dust, detritus and marks caused by the water ingress, contractor attendances at the premises, and remedial works.

Orders made on 28 June 2022:

(2) The rent payable for the residential premises is excessive and is not to exceed $325.00 per week from 23 February 2022 until order (1) of these orders has been complied with or 22 February 2023 whichever occurs first.

(3) Order (2) is liquidated up to the date of the hearing. The landlord, Davinia Elaine Tang, must pay the tenants, Rosemarie Ramjan and Mitchell Gilmour, $4,135.70 immediately.

(4) The amount specified in order (3) is to be applied as a credit to the tenants’ rent account. A money order is not to issue in relation to order (3).

(5) The landlord, Davinia Elaine Tang, must pay the tenants, Rosemarie Ramjan and Mitchell Gilmour, $2,600.00 immediately. A money order may issue in relation to this order.

(6) The tenants’ application for an order pursuant to s 65(5) of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 that rent be paid to the Tribunal until order (1) is complied with is refused.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Ramjan v Tang [2022] NSWCATCD 98
Hearing dates:	20 June 2022
Date of orders:	20 and 29 June 2022
Decision date:	30 June 2022
Jurisdiction:	Consumer and Commercial Division
Before:	P French, Senior Member
Decision:	Orders made on 20 June 2022: (1) The respondent, Davinia Elaine Tang, is to cause the undertaking of the following work in a proper and workmanlike manner on or before 11 July 2022: Details of Work order: (a) engage a mould expert to remove mould from the apartment and treat the apartment to prevent mould regrowth; (b) remove and replace the bedroom carpet and its underlay with an equivalent quality carpet and underlay; (c) replace the bedroom blinds (4) with blinds of an equivalent quality; (d) repair and repaint the hallway wall where a hole has been cut during a water leak investigation; (e) upon completion of items (a) to (d) provide a general clean of the apartment to remove dust, detritus and marks caused by the water ingress, contractor attendances at the premises, and remedial works. Orders made on 28 June 2022: (2) The rent payable for the residential premises is excessive and is not to exceed $325.00 per week from 23 February 2022 until order (1) of these orders has been complied with or 22 February 2023 whichever occurs first. (3) Order (2) is liquidated up to the date of the hearing. The landlord, Davinia Elaine Tang, must pay the tenants, Rosemarie Ramjan and Mitchell Gilmour, $4,135.70 immediately. (4) The amount specified in order (3) is to be applied as a credit to the tenants’ rent account. A money order is not to issue in relation to order (3). (5) The landlord, Davinia Elaine Tang, must pay the tenants, Rosemarie Ramjan and Mitchell Gilmour, $2,600.00 immediately. A money order may issue in relation to this order. (6) The tenants’ application for an order pursuant to s 65(5) of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 that rent be paid to the Tribunal until order (1) is complied with is refused.
Catchwords:	LEASES AND TENANCIES - Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) – rights and obligations of landlords and tenants – maintenance of premises in a reasonable state of repair LEASES AND TENANCIES – Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) – remedies – order for repair - excessive rent order – compensation for disappointment and distress
Legislation Cited:	Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) Residential Tenancies Regulation 2019 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Austin v Bonney [1999] QCA 8 Campbell v Eastern Zone Aboriginal Housing and Community Association [1998] NSWRT Makowska v St George Community Housing Ltd [2021] NSWSC 287 Northern Sandblasting P/L v Harris (1997) 188 CLR 313 Roberts v Aboriginal Housing Office [2017] NSWCATAP 9 Southwark London Borough Council v Tanner [2001] 1 AC 1 Worrall v Commissioner for Housing ACT [2002] FCAFC 127
Texts Cited:	Nil
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Rosemarie Ramjan (First Applicant) Mitchell Gilmour (Second Applicant) Davinia Elaine Tang…