Eliezer v Residential Tribunal & Ors [2001] NSWSC 1092

Reported Decision : 53 NSWLR 657

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Eliezer v Residential Tribunal & Ors [2001] NSWSC 1092 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Civil FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 30052/01 HEARING DATE(S) : 19 October 2001 JUDGMENT DATE : 19 October 2001

Supriya Eliezer (Plt) PARTIES : Residential Tribunal (1D) Erika & Ingrid Karl (2-3D) JUDGMENT OF : McClellan J

LOWER COURT Residential Tribunal JURISDICTION : LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER :

Plaintiff in person COUNSEL : 1D Submitting appearance 2-3D in person SOLICITORS : Not applicable CATCHWORDS : Appeal from Residential Tribunal - whether error of law made by Tribunal - meaning of "goods, services or facilities provided" - whether implied term in a residential tenancy agreement obliging the landlord to take steps to control the activities of strangers LEGISLATION CITED : Residential Tenancies Act 1987 ss 16, 22, 47 CASES CITED : Broad v Parish (1941) 64 CLR 588 DECISION : See para 41

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION McCLELLAN J FRIDAY, 19 OCTOBER 2001 30052/01 - ELIEZER v RESIDENTIAL TRIBUNAL & ORS Judgment 1 HIS HONOUR: This is an appeal by the tenant from a decision of the Residential Tribunal in relation to a dispute arising under a residential tenancy agreement which commenced in December of 1998. The tenanted premises are a two bedroom residential flat situated in Waterloo Road, Marsfield. 2 The original lease provided a term of six months. Both during the proceedings before the Tribunal and at the present the tenant continues to occupy the premises pursuant to the lease. 3 Difficulties arose because of the activities of the occupier of another flat in the same apartment. I am not aware of the precise physical configuration of the premises, but it would appear the other occupants, probably university students, conducted themselves in a way which created considerable inconvenience. Because of the physical relationship between the access to the flat occupied by the others and the tenanted premises great inconvenience was caused to the tenants. 4 The plaintiff in the proceedings before me, Supriya Eliezer, appears with her husband to submit that the Residential Tribunal made an error of law which this Court should correct. The owners of the property also appear, being Erika and Ingrid Karl. The submissions have been made by Ingrid Karl. 5 I have allowed the proceedings to take a more informal process than might normally occur, but I believe that both sides have had every opportunity to place before me every submission which they wish. The plaintiff has also provided me with a detailed written submission, for which I am grateful. 6 The Residential Tribunal records the fact that five claims were made before it. They all arise from the difficulties experienced by the plaintiff because of the activities of other occupants of the building. 7 The Tribunal member recorded the relevant facts, about which there was no dispute, in these terms: (1) the applicant entered into a residential tenancy agreement with the respondent pursuant to a residential tenancy agreement executed on 8 December 1998.