Welch v Luke; Luke v Welch

Link copied
Case Copied 33 min read

Civil and Administrative Tribunal


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Welch v Luke; Luke v Welch [2019] NSWCATCD 72
Hearing dates: 27 June 2019
Date of orders: 23 July 2019 – Amended 8 August 2019
Decision date: 23 July 2019
Jurisdiction:Consumer and Commercial Division
Before: Member S Corley
Decision:

The orders sent to you on 23 July 2019 have been amended under Section 63 of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 and should read as follows:

1. The Tenants, Matthew Welch and Elin Rainoni are to pay the Landlord, Kathryn Luke and Simon Williams the sum of $1270 immediately.

2. This amount of $1270 is to be paid from the Rental Bond S131958-8. The remainder of the bond is to be paid to the Tenants, Matthew Welch and Elin Rainoni.

3. The Landlord’s claim for compensation is otherwise dismissed.

Catchwords:

RESIDENTIAL TENANCY- compensation- bond

Legislation Cited:

Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW)

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Mr Matthew Welch and Ms Elin Rainoni (Tenants)
Ms Kathryn Luke and Mr Simon Williams (Landlord)
Representation: Mr Welch and Ms Rainoni (in person)
Ms Luke and Mr Williams (in person)
File Number(s): RT 19/09535, RT 19/11438
Publication restriction: unrestricted

Reasons for decision

APPLICATION AND JURISDICTION

  1. In application RT19/09535 filed 25 February 2019, Mr Welch and Ms Rainoni (‘the Tenants’) seek orders for the payment of the rental bond.

  2. In application RT19/11438 filed 7 March 2019, Ms Kathryn Luke and Mr Simon Williams (‘the Landlord’) seek orders for the payment of compensation and the payment of the rental bond from the Tenants. The Landlord seeks payment of an amount in excess of $15,000 but has agreed to accept the jurisdictional limit of the Tribunal.

  3. The Landlord and Tenants were party to a residential tenancy agreement governed by the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (RTA). The Tenants paid a bond at the commencement of the tenancy agreement. The tenancy has now terminated.

  4. NCAT has jurisdiction to hear these applications pursuant to ss 175 and 187 of the RTA.

HEARING

  1. Both Mr Welch and Ms Rainoni attended in person.

  2. The Landlord Ms Luke and Mr Williams also attended in person. In addition, they were accompanied by their managing agent Ms Whithear and Mr Chetan of Novak Properties (‘the Agent’).

  3. Both parties had filed documents prior to the hearing in accordance with earlier directions. The parties had access to each other’s documents prior to the hearing. The Landlord’s documents ran to 818 pages, the Tenants’ documents to 166 pages.

  4. All present took an affirmation or oath prior to giving evidence. In the course of giving evidence the parties referred to relevant documents which had previously been filed in this matter.

  5. The Landlord called three witnesses to give evidence, Mr Trent Fraser who installed the new timber floor, Mr Mitchell Facey who attended the property to carry out electrical work and Mr Peter Luke, the father of the Kathryn Luke, who fixed the kitchen sink.

  6. The parties demonstrated significant animosity towards each other and regularly interjected when…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Welch v Luke; Luke v Welch 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
[2019] NSWCATCD 72
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Welch v Luke; Luke v Welch was heard in the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The dispute involved a residential tenancy agreement, focusing on the application of a rental bond. The landlord, Kathryn Luke and Simon Williams, sought compensation for damage to the property and unpaid rent from the tenants, Matthew Welch and Elin Rainoni. The tenants, on the other hand, argued that the landlord had not followed the necessary procedures to claim from the rental bond and that the damage to the property was not their fault.

The legal issues before the tribunal included whether the landlord had correctly applied the rental bond to cover the claimed damages and whether the tenants were liable for the compensation sought. The tribunal had to determine if the landlord had followed the statutory requirements to access the rental bond and if the damage to the property was indeed caused by the tenants. Additionally, the tribunal examined the claim for unpaid rent and whether it was justified under the circumstances.

The tribunal ruled that the landlord was entitled to a portion of the rental bond to cover the damages, but found that the landlord had not followed the necessary procedures to claim from the bond. The tribunal also found that the damage to the property was not entirely attributable to the tenants, reducing the landlord's claim. Consequently, the tribunal ordered the tenants to pay $1270 from the rental bond, with the balance to be returned to the tenants. The landlord's claim for additional compensation was dismissed. The tribunal's decision was based on the evidence presented and the statutory framework governing residential tenancies and rental bonds in New South Wales.

Orders

Orders of the court

The orders sent to you on 23 July 2019 have been amended under Section 63 of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 and should read as follows:

1. The Tenants, Matthew Welch and Elin Rainoni are to pay the Landlord, Kathryn Luke and Simon Williams the sum of $1270 immediately.

2. This amount of $1270 is to be paid from the Rental Bond S131958-8. The remainder of the bond is to be paid to the Tenants, Matthew Welch and Elin Rainoni.

3. The Landlord’s claim for compensation is otherwise dismissed.

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.