Scandolera v Dingwall

Scandolera v Dingwall was an application brought by a tenant against their landlord in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria. The tenant argued that the premises were not a suitable residence, and that as a result they were entitled to a return of their bond. The landlord maintained that the premises were suitable, and that the tenant had breached the lease by not paying rent. The tenant’s application was dismissed. The court found that the landlord had taken all reasonable steps to ensure the premises were suitable, and that the tenant had failed to provide evidence that they were not able to occupy the premises.

The legal issues before the court were whether the premises were a suitable residence, and if not, whether the landlord had taken all reasonable steps to ensure they were suitable. The court considered the definition of a suitable residence in the Residential Tenancies Act, as well as relevant case law. The court also considered the principle of illegality, and whether the fact that the premises were occupied without development consent from Council meant they were not a suitable residence. The court found that the landlord had taken all reasonable steps to ensure the premises were suitable, and that the tenant had failed to provide evidence that they were not able to occupy the premises.

The court held that the landlord had taken all reasonable steps to ensure the premises were suitable, and that the tenant had failed to provide evidence that they were not able to occupy the premises. The court found that the landlord had taken all reasonable steps to ensure the premises were suitable, and that the tenant had failed to provide evidence that they were not able to occupy the premises. The court also found that the principle of illegality did not apply in this case, as the tenant had not been able to demonstrate that they had suffered any prejudice as a result of the lack of development consent. The court further found that the tenant had not been able to demonstrate that the landlord had been unjustly enriched, and that the tenant was not entitled to a return of their bond.

The court ordered that the application be dismissed, and that the Rental Bond Services pay the whole of Bond number E785856-8 of $920.00 plus any interest to the landlord Terry Dingwall. The court found that the landlord had taken all reasonable steps to ensure the premises were suitable, and that the tenant had failed to provide evidence that they were not able to occupy the premises. The court further found that the principle of illegality did not apply in this case, as the tenant had not been able to demonstrate that they had suffered any prejudice as a result of the lack of development consent. The court also found that the tenant had not been able to demonstrate that the landlord had been unjustly enriched, and that the tenant was not entitled to a return of their bond. The court ordered that the Rental Bond Services pay the whole of Bond number E785856-8 of $920.00 plus any interest to the landlord Terry Dingwall.