Ratakhin v Tabaro (No 2)
[2023] QCAT 366
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION: Ratakhin v Tabaro (No 2) [2023] QCAT 366
PARTIES:
SERGEY RATAKHIN T/A FIX MY LAPTOP (applicant) v
SONIA TABARO (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S: RSL023-23
MATTER TYPE: Retail shop leases matter
DELIVERED ON: 12 September 2023
HEARING DATE: 5 September 2023
HEARD AT: Brisbane
DECISION OF: Member King-Scott
ORDERS: 1. Sonia Tabaro pay Sergey Ratakhin t/a Fix My Laptop the sum of $5,000.00 compensation by 4:00 pm on 20 October 2023.
2. Sonia Tabaro refund Sergey Ratakhin t/a Fix My Laptop the bond of $2,600.00 by 4:00 pm on 20 October 2023.
CATCHWORDS: LANDLORD AND TENANT - RETAIL AND
COMMERCIAL TENANCIES LEGISLATION –
JURISDICTION – where dispute about the use of the
subject premises as a retail shop - where landlord refused to replace faulty air conditioner as required under the lease -where tenant refused to pay rent - where tenant locked out of premises - where both parties in breach - where tenant wanted specific performance - where landlord relet premises - compensation for loss of trade as required to work from home.District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld)
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)
Retail Shop Leases Act 1994 (Qld)Small Business Commissioner Act 2022 (Qld)
Ratakhin v Tubaro & Anor [2023] QCAT 256
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: Applicant: Self-represented Respondent: Ms A Dapontes as agent for the Respondent
REASONS FOR DECISION
This matter was the subject of some interlocutory applications heard and determined on the papers by Member Oliver on 5 July 2023.[1] Member Oliver referred to the background of the dispute which I adopt and repeat below with some additional information.
[1]Ratakhin v Tubaro & Anor [2023] QCAT 256
On 21 August 2021 Sonia Tubaro (the landlord) entered into a Commercial Lease Agreement (the Lease) with a company, Fix My Laptop Pty Ltd (the tenant), for premises at 38 Hudson Rd Albion. The lease was for 5 years.
On 16 December 2022 Mr Ratakhin purchased the business from Fix My Laptop Pty Ltd and kept the business name. A deed of Consent to Assign the Lease was entered into between Sonia Tubaro, Fix My Laptop Pty Ltd and Mr Ratakhin. Mr Ratakhin commenced conducting the business at the leased premises in December 2022.
Subsequently, a dispute arose between Mr Ratakhin and the landlord concerning her obligations under the lease. The first was the failure to repair an air conditioner in the leased premises. There was a failure by the landlord to remove a broken down vehicle in the carparking area which, according to Mr Ratakhin was an eyesore and detracted from the amenity of the presentation of the business to customers.
There were exchanges of emails and correspondence between Mr Ratakhin and Alexandra Dapontes, concerning these matters. Ms Dapontes represents the landlord, who is a lady of advanced years and has health issues. Ms Dapontes is an employee of Tubaro Lawyers but has no legal qualifications. The only communications Mr Ratakhin had with the landlord was through Ms Dapontes.
Because of the dispute developing between the landlord and Mr Ratakhin, he decided to withhold rent in January which caused the landlord or Ms Dapontes to lock Mr Ratakhin out of the premises. A resolution was sought, and he would be allowed to re-enter if he paid the outstanding rent, the locksmith fee and accepted responsibility for the air conditioner. Also, he would raise no objection to the dumped Volvo car in the carpark. Mr Ratakhin agreed to the first of these conditions but not the remaining conditions. Mr Ratakhin has not paid rent since the January instalment. He remains locked out at the time of hearing.
Jurisdiction
The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear certain retail tenancy disputes where the amount, value or damages in dispute does not exceed the monetary limit of the District Court of Queensland. The monetary limit under the RSL Act is $750,000.[2] None of the exclusions in section 103(1) of the RSL Act apply here.
[2]District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), s 68(2).
If the amount, value or damages in dispute is less than the QCAT prescribed amount ($25,000)[3] then QCAT may be constituted by a legally qualified member. The amount claimed by the tenant is less than the prescribed amount.
[3]Schedule 3 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)
The Applicant lodged a Notice of Dispute under the Small Business Commissioner Act 2022 (Qld), however, the parties could not agree to mediate the dispute.
The RSL Act provides that the Tribunal may make orders including declaratory orders it considers to be just to resolve a retail tenancy dispute including an order requiring a party to the dispute to pay an amount to a specified person[4] and an order that a party to the dispute is not required to pay an amount to a specified person.[5]
[4]RSL Act, s 83(1), s 83(2)(b).
[5]Ibid, s 83(2)(c).
The landlord maintained her earlier submissions to Member Oliver that the lease in question was not a retail shop lease as defined in the Retail Shop Leases Act 1994 (Qld) (RSL Act). Member Oliver found as a preliminary point, but only for the purpose of the interlocutory applications, that it was a retail shop lease.[6] His reason for doing so was that his research revealed that the Applicant in addition to carrying out computer repairs and servicing also sold computers and accessories from the premises. He reserved a final finding on the issue to the hearing.
[6]Ratakhin v Tubaro & Anor [2023] QCAT 256 [11] to [15]
It became abundantly clear in the course of the evidence that the tenant’s business did include such sales and that it was a retail shop lease. Ms Dapontes maintained her objection but was unable to provide any evidence to rebut Mr Ratakhin’s evidence on the issue save to say that his advertising did not include the word “sales”. I accept Mr Ratakhin’s evidence in preference to Ms Dapontes, not only on this point, but essentially on every other matter.
The air conditioner
There were two air conditioning units in the leased premises. One was a Fujitsu brand (described as the big air conditioner) the other an MDV brand (the smaller air conditioner), it was the former that was faulty. The Fujitsu air conditioner cooled the workshop area, the smaller air conditioner serviced the reception area of the shop.
From the emails passing between Ms Dapontes and the former tenant, Mr Philip Heibloem, it is apparent that the air conditioner was inoperative from 17 November 2022.[7] The day before Ms Dapontes had advised the then tenant Mr Heibloem that the TAB demolition/building work across the road might cause some interference with water and power supply. She advised that she would call Energex (presumably their power supplier) to check.
[7]See email Dapontes to Philip Heibloem dated 23 November 2022 contained in material filed by the Applicant on 1 June 2023.
By email dated 23 November 2022 Mr Heibloem referred to a meeting with Ms Dapontes. Mr Heibloem’s notes of the meeting relevant to the air conditioner were communicated to Ms Dapontes by email as follows:
You tested the AC unit yourself and even fitted new batteries to the remote and concluded the unit is now faulty.
You said you would arrange for it to be serviced and confirmed that the premises became intolerably hot without it working.
In the same email Mr Heibloem supplied the following report on the faulty air conditioner as requested by Ms Dapontes. He said:
Last week, on Monday 21st November, mid-morning, power was lost to my premises. After 1 to 2 seconds, it came back on again. The computers, printers, small AC unit, etc restarted or were restarted OK.
The big AC in my workroom was running before the power incident. It would not restart. It seems totally dead. I checked the fuse box and the AC switch was off. I turned it on and tried to start the AC unit.
The AC unit did not respond but the safety switch clicked off immediately. Again, I turned it back on and tried the AC unit again. This time it has lights on the unit and the fan grate opened but the unit did not operate.
I went outside and turned the power off/on to the compressor. This made no difference. At this stage I abandoned efforts to get the unit operating and reported the matter to you.
Following this report and in the same email Mr Heibloem said:
Can you please, without delay, organise to have the unit serviced or repaired. If no action is forthcoming, I will call a service company myself and just deduct the cost from my rent, like I was forced to do with the fluro light that was faulty and left unfixed for 3 weeks and the invoice unpaid for 3 months by the owner or property manager. I have a business to run and am not interested in this pen-pinching (sic.) nonsense. I pay rent and I demand to be afforded prompt business like remedial action for faults for which the building owner is responsible.
Ms Dapontes acknowledged receipt the same day.
Later in the day on 23 November 2022 Mr Heibloem inquired as to progress.
Mr Heibloem by email dated 25 November 2022 forwarded a report from his receptionist to Ms Dapontes which said:
The electricians looked at the unit from the inside and outside, they said that all three of the coils were fried due to an electrical issue. They can’t fix the problem due to the unit being fried. They mentioned the unit was quite old and needed to be replaced anyways
My boss Phillip (Heibloem) wanted me to ask if the damage was due to lack of service. They just said no, and as mentioned from before it was due to an electrical issue.
Mr Heibloem followed that report with the following email:
My receptionist sent me this report on the visit by the AC guys. No doubt they will be giving you an official report. As the unit seems to be uneconomic to repair can you discuss with Sonia the installation of a new unit as soon as possible as we still need a functional AC unit one way or the other.
Ms Dapontes responded on 28 November 2022 as follows:
I’m calling an electrician.
I’m handling the matter.
Sorry someone in my family had a bad accident.
In fact, it appears that she had engaged Sparkrite Electrical to inspect the air conditioner on 25 February 2022. I will refer to their report later.
There seems to have been no further email communication until Mr Heibloem emailed Ms Dapontes on 3 January 2023 as follows:
As you will recall that last month I discussed with you this situation with a faulty AC unit. You asked me to provide you with a copy of the service report/invoice for the AC units to prove to you that as per the lease I did undertake servicing. This is attached.
You advised me that the issue with the Fujitsu AC unit was caused by a gecko, and as such was the tenants responsibility. You did not provide any evidence for this claim even though I asked for a copy of your service report. I told you that I understood the issue to be electrical.
Your new tenant has asked for my help to resolve the matter, hence my e-mail to you.
What I have done over the last two weeks is have two independent AC professionals assess unit and both have reported the same thing that your electrician told my receptionist on the day of their inspection. “All three circuit boards have blown”. Most likely cause a power surge.
This may have been from the demolition of the TAB building across the road as you suggested, I do not know.
The AC units are the property of the landlord and it is not the responsibility of the lessee to replace them if they fail and are uneconomic to repair. I have given you written statements as to the events leading up to the failure. Spontaneous blackouts.
Can you please organise ASAP to have the AC units replaced for your new tenant Mr Ratakhin.
I have attached:
1. An invoice dated from Optus electrical relating to the service of the units in February 2022.
2. A report dated 7 January 2023 from get wired electrical and air conditioning- confirming the unit died from a power surge.
3. Photos from Mr. Ashley Dwyer of Northern Industrial who also inspected the AC unit and photographed the blow and circuit boards.
In undertaking these investigations and commissioning these reports nothing should be construed as to any acknowledgement of responsibility for the repair or replacing of the AC unit. It was done to try to move things along in light of past property management experiences. It is very hot in these offices. Action needs to be taken urgently.
Ms Dapontes by email dated 3 January 2023 advised the Applicant to the following effect:
The landlord said to pay for air conditioner replacement in the main office yourself at your cost. Please confirm your current e-mail address.
The Applicant, Mr Ratakhin responded as follows:
I’m not stupid. Please don’t waste my time with this nonsense.
After quoting the terms of the lease which I will refer to hereunder he went on to say:
I expect the replacement to be arranged before the next month rent is paid. Attached are two quotes, feel free to choose one. It’s really hot in the building and I expect it to be remedied ASAP.
Ms Dapontes replied by email dated 4 January 2023 as follows:
Dear Sergey,
I deny your allegations.
The unit is not ten years old.
The alleged invoices for maintenance were received yesterday after many requests for them, despite being told maintenance was not done initially.
I call for proof tax invoices were paid.
In any event if invoices were paid, the tradesmen are liable for damages to air conditioner as they should have a guarantee or warranty for work. You need to take this issue up with air conditioning maintenance man since invoice is for Fix My Laptop not us. We do not agree to you not paying the rent. We do not agree to you paying for the air conditioner then not paying the rent. You are to pay for the air conditioner at your cost. If you fail to pay the full rent, that would be a breach of a condition and the consequences are clearly outlined in the lease.
I have referred to the correspondence between the parties in detail to show the unreasonableness of the landlord’s approach to the issue. Her unreasonableness becomes apparent when the relevant terms of the lease are considered.
The Commercial Property Lease Agreement dated 15 August 2021 provided under Clause 38 Special Conditions, inter alia:
9. Air conditioning - Maintenance. The Tenant agrees and acknowledges that the air conditioning systems in the premises is owned by the Landlord however the Tenants agrees that it shall maintain that air conditioning systems all plant equipment’s associated with the recommendations of the system manufacturers. Should the Tenant fail to do so Tenants agree and acknowledges that the Landlord may have all appropriate maintenance performed of and for the said conditioning systems and the Tenant shall be responsible for payments of the maintenance costs so incurred by the Landlord forthwith upon the Tenants receipt of request for payment.
(grammatical errors included)
A fair reading of the clause could only lead one to the conclusion that the responsibility of the tenant was confined to the maintenance and service of the air conditioning units and not to the replacement of a faulty or non-functioning unit.
At the hearing, Ms Dapontes maintained her stance and would not countenance an alternative construction of the clause. Asked why the tenant would be liable if a gecko was a possible cause of the damage she argued, quite unreasonably, in my opinion, that it was the landlord’s responsibility to have the air conditioner vermin proofed!
At the hearing Ms Dapontes tendered an invoice dated 25 November 2022 from Sparkrite Electrical addressed to her, relating to their attendance at the leased premises on or about that date. It stated the cause of the 3 burnt out circuit boards as due to geckos. The author also noted that the unit was beyond viable repair. The invoice referred to an attached quote which was not tendered.
It will be recalled that Mr Heibloem sought evidence from Ms Dapontes for her assertion that geckos were the cause but no evidence was forthcoming until the invoice was produced for the first time at the hearing.
Sparkrite Electrical must have been the electricians that the receptionist referred to in her email which stated the cause as an electrical issue.
The attendance of Sparkrite Electrical at the premises predated the inspection by Get Wired on 2 January 2023. Ms Dapontes must have been aware at that time that the air conditioner was beyond repair.
I am not satisfied that the cause of the problem was geckos. There is conflicting versions by Sparkrite Electrical and a clear statement by Get Wired. No electricians were called to give evidence or be cross-examined. Photographs were taken of the damaged circuit boards but there is no mention of geckos. Even if the cause of the air conditioner failure was due to the infestation of geckos, it was not a liability relating to maintenance or service by the tenant.
The abandoned car
The complaint related to a Volvo sedan that was parked in a conspicuous position in the car park of the premises but not involving the area leased by the tenant.
The car was not abandoned but was the property of Ms Dapontes. It seems not to have been driven for some time and was not registered. It remained parked in a position that annoyed Mr Heibloem and later Mr Ratakhin. Subsequently, it was vandalised and graffitied and became even more of an eye sore, but Ms Dapontes refused to have it moved.
Initially, in August 2021 it appears that Ms Dapontes may have been agreeable to it being removed when she had removed her personal items from it.[8] However, she appears to have changed her mind. Mr Heibloem in an email to Ms Dapontes dated 23 November 2022 referred to a conversation at a meeting on 17 November 2022 with Ms Dapontes. He noted:
You also confirmed that the old Volvo car would be removed very soon as was promised last year. I thanked you and restated that this was important to FML and parking harmony.
[8]Email passing between Mr Heibloem and Ms Dapontes on 31 August 2021.
Under the terms of the lease the tenant was allocated one car park. Presumably, there were carparks for customers in the common area. At times there seemed to be issues over carparking, Mr Heibloem complaining that people were parking in his carpark.
In my opinion, I consider the presence of the vandalised car an interference to the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the tenancy. I don’t think it amounted to a significant disruption to the tenant’s trading in the terms of s.43 (1) (c) of the RSL Act. It arguably falls with s.43 (1) (e) in that in failing to remove the car the landlord failed to keep the retail shopping centre clean and properly maintained.
The witnesses
Only Mr Ratakhin and Ms Dapontes gave evidence and were cross-examined by the other.
I found Ms Dapontes to be a wholly unsatisfactory witness. Consistent with her unreasonable behaviour in representing the landlord she was just as unreasonable in giving evidence and conducting the case on behalf of her principal. As an example, she refused to accept what were apparently genuine invoices as proof of servicing of the air conditioners requiring proof that the tax invoices were paid. She refused to accept the profit and loss accounts of the tenant (said to be prepared by his accountant) as evidence of trading demanding he produce bank accounts and BAS statements.
Ms Dapontes believed that Mr Ratakhin had vandalised her car and was responsible for the graffiti even though it was investigated by the police and there was no evidence linking him to either event. She exclaimed from the bar table that everyone knew it was him!
The landlord locked Mr Ratakhin out for not paying rent. Mr Ratakhin admitted forcing the rear door and gaining entry to retrieve some of his goods including customer’s items that were in for repair. Ms Dapontes argued that Mr Ratakhin, having gained entry carried on business from that time as customers could enter via that door, it being the same as the front entry. Mr Ratakhin denied that he carried on business, and in any event said that customers did not enter through the rear door. He tendered Exhibit 4 which clearly shows the front entrance, which has a counter and accessories inside the door to the right.
It appeared to me that Ms Dapontes said anything that came into her mind that countered Mr Ratakhin’s evidence without any regard as to whether it was true or not.
Towards the end of her submissions, Ms Dapontes made the startling submission that she thought Mr Ratakhin was effectively a plant by Mr Heibloem to cause a breach of the lease inferring that he was not a genuine purchaser of the business.
Mr Ratakhin was not a totally satisfactory witness either. Having for some time denied that he changed the locks on the rear door he finally confessed that he “should make a disclosure” and admitted to forcing the door with a knife to gain entry.
Despite the above admission I generally prefer his evidence where it differs from Ms Dapontes. Its consistent with the documentary evidence and emails. His behaviour towards Ms Dapontes borne out of frustration is understandable considering the aggressive manner in which Ms Dapontes dealt with him and Mr Heibloem over their complaints.
Termination of the lease
One of the interlocutory matters before Member Oliver was an application by Mr Ratakhin to restrain the landlord from reletting the premises. That was dismissed but up to that time, Mr Ratakhin, essentially, was seeking specific performance of the lease.
Mr Ratakhin thought the landlord was bluffing when he received the notice demanding possession, subsequently, he came to the conclusion that she, or rather Ms Dapontes, was not bluffing.
The landlord exercised her right to re-enter the premises by giving a notice by email to Mr Ratakhin on 11 January 2023. The notice purportedly was given under Clause 34.2 and 34.3 of the Lease. It was served by email without prior agreement as to that manner of service as required by Clause 36. When it was pointed out that service by email may not have complied with the terms of the Lease, Ms Dapontes says she served it personally. I do not accept that she did. Nevertheless, Mr Ratakhin was aware of the notice though he doubted its legality.
By email dated 25 January 2023 Ms Dapontes, for the landlord, advised Mr Ratakhin that she was prepared to reinstate the lease on the following conditions:
(a)You provide confirmation of the January 2023 rent payment by way of receipt;
(b)You pay costs of the locksmith ($490) and provide us with a copy of receipt into the owner’s bank account;
(c)You accept responsibility for repair or replacement of the air conditioner for which you can attend to at any time in the future at your convenience and your costs;
(d)You confirm in writing that you take no issue with the white Volvo car parked in front of the GOA sign.
Mr Ratakhin then paid the rent of $1,401.40 on 25 January 2023 before receiving notice of the additional conditions. By email dated 26 January 2023 he advised he would not agree to those conditions.
At the time of giving notice, I am satisfied that the landlord was in breach of the Lease for failing to replace the air conditioner despite numerous requests to do so. The breach of the special condition relating to the air conditioners was a breach that would give rise to a right to terminate the lease. This led Mr Ratakhin to refuse to pay the rent which was the basis of the landlord’s claim to terminate. The landlord cannot take advantage of that breach when she herself was in breach.
Both parties were in breach but Mr Ratakhin was ready and willing to perform his obligations under the Lease. The imposition of additional conditions but principally the conditions relating to the air conditioner and the Volvo car meant that the landlord remained in breach. However, Mr Ratakhin still wished to continue with the Lease and did not accept the landlord’s repudiation. The Lease was not terminated at that time.
Following the hearing by Member Oliver the landlord relet the premises albeit at a lower rent. I was informed that was from 1 July 2023.
The lease came to an end, at least by then, as the landlord could not perform.
Compensation under the RSL Act
The RSL Act provides for compensation to shop owners for, inter alia, business disturbance. In particular and relevant to this matter the following provisions apply.
43 When compensation is payable by lessor—business disturbance
(1) The lessor is liable to pay to the lessee reasonable compensation for loss or damage suffered by the lessee because the lessor, or a person acting under the lessor’s authority—
(a) substantially restricts the lessee’s access to the leased shop; or
(b) takes action (other than action under a lawful requirement) that substantially restricts, or alters—
(i) access by customers to the leased shop; or
(ii) the flow of potential customers past the shop; or
(c) …
(d) does not have rectified as soon as is practicable—
(i) any breakdown of plant or equipment under the lessor’s care or maintenance; or
(ii) any defect in the retail shopping centre or leased building containing the leased shop, other than a defect due to a condition that would have been reasonably apparent to the lessee when the lessee entered into the lease or, for a lessee by way of assignment of the lease, when the lessee accepted the assignment; or
(e) neglects to clean, maintain or repaint the retail shopping centre or leased building containing the leased shop or the part of the centre or building that, under the lease, is the lessor’s responsibility; or
(f) …
(2) The lessee must give the lessor written notice of the loss or damage mentioned in subsection (1) as soon as practicable after it is suffered.
(3) If the lessee fails to give the lessor the notice, the failure does not affect any right of the lessee to compensation but must be considered when deciding the amount of compensation payable under section 44.
The RSL Act provides that if the parties cannot agree on the amount of compensation payable the amount is to be decided by way of dispute resolution.[9] ‘Dispute resolution process’ is defined to include a hearing by the Tribunal of a retail tenancy dispute.[10]
[9]S. 44(1) RSL Act
[10]Schedule RSL Act
The landlord has breached s. 43(1)(d) of the RSL Act by not replacing the air conditioner unit when she knew it was not viable to repair as was apparent from the Sparkrite Electrical invoice in November 2022.[11]
[11]Exhibit 1
In my opinion, the failure to remove the Volvo car would fall within 43(1)(e) of the RSL Act as a failure to clean and/or maintain the retail shopping centre. Photographs depicting the vehicle show it to have broken windows and graffiti comprising large letters in red painted down the side of the vehicle giving the appearance that it is an abandoned wreck and clearly an eyesore. It was observable from the street. Leaving it in position detracted from the amenity of the premises.
In my opinion, these breaches entitle the Applicant to compensation which I will assess hereunder.
Damages for breach
If the landlord was entitled to damages that related only to the failure to pay rent and was rectified when Mr Ratakhin paid the rent for the month of January. As he would not agree to the additional conditions he remained locked out of the premises. The landlord remained in breach.
When he was locked out, Mr Ratakhin operated his business from his home. He did not have sufficient space, at home, to take back all of the contents of the leased premises.
He advised that as a result of being locked out the business suffered a sharp decline in turnover. He provided a profit and loss statement of the business. He also provided a summary of his gross income which averaged $669 per day in December when he was still being trained by the previous owner. In January when, on his own, he earned an average of $1,310.00 per day whilst still in the premises. In February he worked from home and earned an average of $803.00 per day but reduced his working week to 5 days a week because of a drop off in work. For the next few months his average daily takings were $664.00 for March, $661.00 for April and $533.00 for May.
It is difficult to establish, from the Profit and Loss statement, what the Applicant’s losses were, with any degree of precision. No expert evidence was given to support the Applicant’s claim.
Mr Ratakhin claimed that there was $10,000 worth of equipment stored on the premises and $2,000 of work in progress at the time he was locked out. He collected a lot of those goods in May 2023 when admitted to the premises by the landlord. The remaining goods were placed in storage by the landlord who is still paying storage costs. He admitted that he had recovered 90% of those equipment and goods that he had valued at $10,000. He did not collect all the goods as he stated that he had nowhere to store them. Mr Ratakhin was ambivalent as to whether he wanted them returned. I have not allowed for any loss of equipment/goods in my assessment of damages and/ or compensation.
I am of the opinion that there must have been a significant loss of income when Mr Ratakhin was unable to work from a shop as opposed from his home. The business’s signs remained in place at the leased premises which Mr Ratakhin concedes provided some benefit to the business. Mr Ratakhin did not have to pay rent during the period which was a saving. The landlord has withheld the bond of $2,600.00. Taking all of this into account and doing the best I can, I assess damages/compensation on a global basis at $5,000.00 inclusive of GST. I also order the landlord to refund the bond of $2,600.00.
I order the Respondent pay the Applicant the sum of $5,000.00 compensation and refund the bond of $2,600.00 by 4:00 pm on 20 October 2023.
0