Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Magdalena Adamson v Kincumber Nautical Village Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCATCD 110 Hearing dates: 11 April 2014 Decision date: 25 June 2014 Before: D Charles, General Member Decision: 1. The Tribunal determines that the weekly rents for the period 3 January 2013 to 2 January 2014 were not excessive and that there was no reduction or withdrawal of services and facilities provided with the residential premises by the respondent. 2. The application for relief under section 56 of the Residential Parks Act, 1998 is dismissed. 3. Pursuant to section 58 of the Residential Parks Act, 1998 the rent payable by the applicant(s) from 3 January 2014 for a period of twelve months from that date is not to exceed the amount per week as set out in the third column of the Table of Weekly Rents in Dispute which is an Annexure to these Reasons. 4. Any amount of rent which has been overpaid as a result of order 3 is to be refunded to the applicant(s). Catchwords: Residential Parks - whether the rents payable by park residents are excessive having regard to a reduction or withdrawal of services and facilities provided with the premises (section 56) Whether rent increase for 2014 is excessive (section 55) Legislation Cited: Residential Parks Act, 1998 Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Various Residents (applicants) Kincumber Nautical Village Pty Ltd (respondent) File Number(s): RP 13/60918 plus others Publication restriction: Unrestricted reasons for decision THE APPLICATIONS, BACKGROUND FACTS & JURISDICTION 1Some residents of Kincumber Nautical Village (the "Park") are in dispute with the respondent (the "Park Owner") regarding rents paid or payable during 2013/14 and 2014/15 on their residential sites at the Park. Their applications are brought under the Residential Parks Act, 1998 (the "RP Act") against the Park Owner and each application relates to the same issues. 2By applications lodged in November 2013, these residents including the applicant(s) on this application, now ask the Tribunal to make orders in or to this effect: (i) that for the period from 3 January 2013 to 2 January 2014 the rents paid by the applicant(s) were excessive having regard to a reduction or withdrawal of services and facilities by the Park Owner (hereinafter referred to as "the applications under s 56 of the RP Act"); further and alternatively (ii) that an increase of $21.00 per week in regard to rents which took effect from 3 January 2014 under a rent increase notice sent to residents of the Park including the applicant(s) on or about 18 October 2013 is excessive (hereinafter referred to as "the applications under s 55 of the RP Act"). 3Some of the multiple applications lodged in November 2013 have been dismissed. This may be because the Park Owner has withdrawn the Rent Increase Notice for a particular site in the Park, or the person who signed the application is not the leaseholder of the relevant site, or an applicant has sold his/her site to a third party since lodging the application, or the application refers to the wrong site, or the applicant is now deceased. These Reasons are given for all other applications where the issues in dispute as outlined above relate to rents paid or payable in 2013/14 and 2014/15. 4Kincumber Nautical Village is located in the Central Coast Region of New South Wales. It is a residential park accessed by road from Empire Bay Drive Kincumber. The Park backs onto Kincumber Broadwater, a part of Brisbane Water. While there are some vacant blocks of land, the Park presently consists of 362 occupied residential sites which have been developed in four stages. There are private roads within the Park connecting the various residential sites 5A range of different rents (see the Table of Weekly Rents in Dispute which is an Annexure to these Reasons) apply within the Park, having regard to the location and size of the sites within the Park. In respect of these applications before the Tribunal, the lowest weekly rent prior to the increase notified by the Rent Increase Notice of 18 October 2013 was $144.11 per week and the highest was $225.15 per week. The Park Owner states that the differing rents payable reflect factors such as the section of the Park in which the site is located (e.g. water front sites command a higher rent) and whether it is a corner or perimeter site. The applicants say that the difference in rents is also due to the Park Owner's refusal to assign existing agreements when a resident sells their premises (and then putting up the rent on arrival of the new resident), the fact that some residents of the Park are not applicants to the Tribunal for relief under the RP Act and because some new residents purchase the premises on their site direct from the Park Owner (who puts a premium on rents). 6The Park's common facilities include a community hall, a bistro, a games room, a swimming pool, a spa, a full-sized tennis court, a putting green and a barbeque area. The Park is a short distance from shops and other services. There is a bus-stop at the entrance of the Park. 7The Tribunal is satisfied that there is an agreement between the Park Owner and the particular resident(s) who have brought these application(s) and that such agreement is a residential site agreement within the meaning of the RP Act. Accordingly the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine the application(s). 8The Tribunal is further satisfied that valid Notices of Rent Increase have been served in accordance with s 53 of the RP Act. The Tribunal notes that the Park Owner takes no issue as regards the time within which the applications under s 56 of the RP Act were brought and consents to any order if required extending the time to bring the application. COMMONALITY OF APPLICATIONS, CONCILIATION & EVIDENCE 9All matters were listed for conciliation and hearing at the Erina Library Centre on 11 April 2014. The Tribunal has an obligation to promote resolution processes: see s 37 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013. Where (as in this instance) there are multiple applications involving residents of the same Park and the same issues are in dispute (essentially, whether rent and/or rent increases are excessive), it is plainly the case that all such matters are amenable to the Tribunal's conciliation processes. It is good and sensible practice for parties (whether a park owner or residents) to appreciate the merits of participation in the resolution processes and also for them to use best endeavours to reach an agreement to compromise their differences. Apart from saving time, expense and other inconvenience to them, parties should always bear in mind that a successfully concluded conciliation on all matters in dispute is an important and effective means of managing the risk that parties inevitably take when insisting that their matters in dispute be decided at a formal hearing before a Tribunal member. Such risk is tolerably clear: the parties could obtain an outcome at a formal hearing which is less favourable than they might otherwise have negotiated between themselves during conciliation processes. 10For these applications, and despite the best efforts of the conciliator, the parties could not resolve their differences on 11 April 2014. A small number of applications brought by Park residents were subsequently withdrawn by agreement of the Park Owner's representative and the residents' representative. This occurred in consequence of specific directions made by the Tribunal at the conclusion of the taking of evidence at the formal hearing on 11 April 2014. 11Other than the applications subsequently withdrawn, the parties' representatives asked that the Tribunal hear and determine the applications where issues arising under s 55 and s 56 of the RP Act remained 'live'. In making its decision on the matters in dispute for the applications which remained 'live', the Tribunal has given due and careful consideration to the evidence and submissions of the Park Owner and the residents. While the detail of each submission or piece of evidence may not be expressly referred to in these Reasons, the evidence and submissions which the Tribunal has had regard to is that contained in the written materials provided to the Tribunal pursuant to prior procedural directions or in the affirmed oral evidence and submissions made by the Park Owner's representative and the residents' representative, respectively, at the formal hearing on 11 April 2014. APPLICATIONS UNDER SECTION 56 OF THE RP ACT 12On 22 August 2012 there were conciliations and hearings in respect a series of applications brought by residents of the Park. The subject of the conciliations was whether rent increases for the period from 3 January 2013 to 2 January 2014 were excessive. The orders made by the Tribunal on that occasion were: "On 22-Aug-2012 the following orders were made: 1. By consent, it is ordered that the rent shall not exceed the sum of (insert relevant rent) per week as from 03-Jan-2013 to 01-Jan-2014. 2. By consent, other orders: Time is extended to bring the application. 3.The Tribunal notes that in reaching the agreement to the order for rent increase the parties have agreed that; (i) The park owner will set aside the sum of $10,000.00 for repairs to the roads in the old area of the park and the park. The manner in which the repairs will commence is as follows; (a) the residents will elect a committee on or before 24 September 2011; (b) the committee will meet with the park owner on or before 30 October 2012 for the purpose of selecting a suitable contractor to carry out the repair work. (ii) the park owner will respondent to any written complaint from a resident within 10 days and where inquiries are to be made or investigation the response will be within 28 days; (iii) the park owner will demolish at its own expense the unused amenities blocks including the laundry and drying areas. The land will then be used for residential sites. All work is to be subject to council consent; (iv) the park owner will continue to maintain all of the remaining infrastructure that is the responsibility of the park owner and will repair cracks to the tennis court surface with suitable material; and (v) the park owner, where required by law, will upgrade the electricity supply provision at any supply point in the park. At the time this work is completed, the park owner will upgrade where reasonably practical, to the required legal level and at no cost to the resident, the supply from the park owners' supply point to the residents' premises. Such upgrade will be done without any adverse affect to the resident's premises." 13The Park residents who have brought these applications, submit that the agreements noted in the orders made on 22 August 2012 for each application have not been carried into effect. It is contended that the residents were 'duped' into agreeing to an increase of $11.00 for the 2013 rents upon assurances that the agreements would be honoured by the Park Owner. In particular, it is said that the roads within the Park have not been repaired to good condition. In support of these contentions, the applicants relied upon photographs taken on 24 November 2013 with depictions of crumbling road surfaces, roads' reports with information as to locations within the Park where there are potholes and cracking on road surfaces and as to the type of repair required, and correspondence dated 1 November 2012 and 8 May 2013 from the residents' roadworks committee. 14It is also submitted that the Park Owner has not upgraded electricity supply to residents. 15In the circumstances, the applicants contend the Tribunal must find that there has been a reduction or withdrawal by the Park Owner of services and facilities within the Park and further that in consequence of such reduction and withdrawal the applicants are entitled to a rent reduction to the rent levels before the orders were made on 22 August 2012. They rely upon s 56 of the RP Act which provides: (1) A resident under a residential tenancy agreement may, at any time, apply to the Tribunal for an order declaring that the rent payable under a residential tenancy agreement or a proposed residential tenancy agreement for residential premises already occupied by the resident is excessive, having regard to the reduction or withdrawal by the park owner of any goods, services or facilities provided with the premises. (2) This section applies whether or not the goods, services or facilities are provided under the agreement or a separate contract, agreement or arrangement or were provided under a previous contract, agreement or arrangement. (3) For the purposes of subsection (1), the introduction of metering arrangements for the supply of and charging for water or electricity, where such charges had previously not been paid separately by the resident, is taken to involve the withdrawal by the park owner of services provided with the premises. However, such withdrawal of services does not mean, of itself, that rent has become excessive, for the purposes of this section. 16Pursuing a case for relief under s 56 is also relevant to the residents' case under s 55. If successful in their s 56 case, the residents submit that the rents they paid in the period from 3 January 2013 to 2 January 2014 were excessive within the meaning of s 56 and therefore should be reduced by an amount of $11, or such other amount as the Tribunal may decide is commensurate with the reduction or withdrawal of services and facilities by the Park Owner. In essence, if the s 56 case is allowed, then the starting point for determining whether a rent increase in the period 3 January 2014 to 2 January 2015 is excessive within the meaning of s 55 becomes the rent adjusted under s 56; that is, a level of rent which is up to $11.00 less than the amounts actually paid by applicants in the period from 3 January 2013 to 2 January 2014. 17The Park Owner submitted there is no evidence to substantiate the allegations that the agreements noted in the orders of 22 August 2012 have not been carried into effect. It vehemently denies that the residents' were 'duped' into agreeing to the orders made on 22 August 2012.The Park Owner relies on evidence that there has been no reduction or withdrawal of services and facilities at the Park since 2012 and that all agreements with the residents regarding road works and electricity supply have been honoured. 18The orders and notations of 22 August 2012 were made by consent. The written submissions of the residents' representative infer that the Park Owner has not at all material times, acted in good faith and that the residents did not enter into the agreements of 22 August 2012 voluntarily. There is no evidence before the Tribunal on these applications to substantiate such allegations. 19The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicants have made out a case for relief under s 56 of the RP Act. The applicants bear the onus to the civil standard (the balance of probabilities) of establishing a reduction or withdrawal of services and facilities by the Park Owner since 2012 whether occurring by reason of the Park Owner not carrying out the matters noted in the agreements of 22 August 2012, or otherwise. Other than the assertions in the roads' reports and the correspondence of the residents' committee as to the condition of the roads and the Park Owner's failure to carry out works, the applicants rely on the photographic evidence. The photographs depict crumbling surfaces and some cracking, including a 'spider web' appearance of road surfaces for certain sections of the Park's roads, but the Tribunal is not persuaded the photographs are conclusive evidence that the roads are in such poor condition that their present state amounts to a reduction or withdrawal of services and facilities at the Park or that the Park Owner has not carried into effect the agreements noted in the orders of 22 August 2012. The evidence is to the contrary. The Park Owner produced invoices to establish that it had spent $15,337.32 on road works since 2012, which is well in excess of the sum it had agreed to set aside for road works (see paragraph 3(i) of the orders of 22 August 2012). The Tribunal further finds that the evidence contained in the civil engineer's letter of 7 February 2014 is an accurate statement of the present condition of the roads within the Park. The letter states, relevantly: "The roads in the Village are generally in good condition. There is some evidence of localised surface damage which has been repaired in the past using a 'cold mix' preparation. This method of repair is appropriate for the style of road and meets accepted industry standards. The roads in the original section of the Village are in fair to good condition and reflective of their age, use and method of construction. There is evidence of localised surface damage which has been repaired in the past using a 'cold mix' preparation. This method of repair is appropriate for the style of road and meets accepted industry standards. The most likely cause of the surface damage is the result of heavy vehicles such as garbage trucks or the like damaging the surface, which then allows rain water to penetrate and undermine the surface layer. This results in a 'spider web' appearance on the surface but does not affect the usability of the road. My inspection revealed that the underlying road structure was correctly installed and is intact. All roads are serviceable and in a condition suited for their use particularly in light of the 10Km per hour speed limit in the park". 20The Park Owner also produced a map of the Park highlighting the sections of the roads where repairs had been undertaken during 2012 and 2013. The areas highlighted are those which the residents' committee had directed were in need of repair. 21There is evidence (the Statutory Declaration of Ray and Lynn Johnson made 7 February 2014), from the Park's managers in the period from May 2011 to October 2012 that the Park was: "in generally good repair when we were first appointed and that level of repair was consistently upheld throughout our time at the Village". 22Further, if there were complaints about the Park Owner's failure to carry out road repairs during 2012 and 2013 (see, for example, the residents' committee correspondence dated 8 May 2013, referring to no work having been carried out "other than some patch work with cold mix by the Village staff"), then it was open to residents to bring an application for orders (including work orders or orders for payment of compensation) under s 16 of the RP Act for breach of a residential tenancy agreement or for non-compliance with the Park Owner's obligation under s 24 of the RP Act to provide and maintain the residential premises in a reasonable state of repair. The residents did not do so. 23The Tribunal also finds that the Park Owner has complied with all its obligations in respect of electricity supply and that there has been no reduction or withdrawal of services and facilities. There is no evidence that the supply of electricity to sites within the Park has changed or that supply has been adversely affected. In this respect, the Tribunal accepts the evidence contained in the Statutory Declaration of the licensed electrician Michael Gordon made on 14 February 2014. 24In summary the Tribunal is satisfied that the Park Owner has fulfilled its obligations arising out of the agreements noted with the orders of 22 August 2012 and that there has been no reduction or withdrawal of services and facilities at the Park. The application for relief under s 56 of the RP Act is dismissed. APPLICATIONS UNDER SECTION 55 OF THE RP ACT 25The remaining issues to be determined are whether the rent increases the subject of the Notices of Rent Increase dated 18 October 2013 are excessive within the meaning of s 55 of the RP Act. The finding that the applicants are not entitled to relief under s 56 of the RP Act means the level of rents for the period from 3 January 2013 to 2 January 2014 are as set out in column 1 of the Table of Weekly Rents in Dispute which is an Annexure to these Reasons. 26The applicants concede some increase of rent is justified. They suggest a modest increase in line with a CPI increase. They also contend that a better way to achieve equality in rents is to look toward a percentage rate of increase rather than an 'across the board' figure. 27The Park Owner submits an 'across the board' figure of $21.00 is appropriate. It submits that its calculation of that figure is reasonable having regard to a 'minimum breakeven rent increase per week' across three groups within the Park (each group depending on when the last rent increase took effect), an 'incremental sum' within each group, an operational cost increase per site since the last rent increase within each group (and averaged over all occupied sites and not just the applicants' sites), an average rent (being the rent of the applicants within the three groups), and a relevant CPI increase: see appendix 8 of the Park Owner's documents. 28In making its determination, the Tribunal has to take into consideration all of the factors referred to in s 57 of the RP Act. The Tribunal's task is to evaluate all of the evidence provided by the parties in respect of the criteria or factors set out in s 57 and then to make a decision on whether an increase in rent is excessive. No one factor should be given more weight than any other. 29The evidence in respect of each of those factors is as set out below. General market level of rents for comparable premises in the same residential park (s 57(a)) 30The applicants submit that it is impossible to make valid comparisons of the applicants' rents to any other rents paid in the Park. This is because of the way the Park has been developed over the years (i.e. in four stages). For example, it is submitted that it is inappropriate to compare Stage 3 sites within the Park (sites developed near the waterfront) with other sites in Stages 1, 2 or 4 of the Park. The Tribunal accepts such proposition as it is certainly the case that the rents payable depend not only on the section of the Park within which the site is located but also on other matters such as the size of the site, the position of the site (waterfront sites command a higher rent) and the dimensions of the site (whether it is a corner site or a perimeter site). 31On the other hand, the Park Owner points to the fact that the Park has 362 occupied sites and that applicants in 213 sites are now seeking relief from the Tribunal. In other words, for 41% of occupied sites, there is no application to the Tribunal in respect of excessive rent. In the Park Owner's submission, such a significant level of acceptance of increased rent is indicative of a general market level of rent within the whole Park. However, it is one factor only. While it must be taken into consideration by the Tribunal in making its determination as to whether the increase in rent is excessive, it cannot be a decisive factor. It has to be balanced against the other factors in s 57. General market level of rents for comparable premises in other residential parks in the locality or a similar locality (s 57(a)) 32The applicants contend that there are a number of parks in the locality or a similar locality (i.e. the Central Coast region of New South Wales) which are far superior to the Park. 33There is no persuasive evidence in the form of an expert valuation appraisal provided by the applicants to substantiate this contention. The Tribunal, in previous decisions relating to this Park, has found that there are significant differences between the Park and other residential parks in the locality or a similar locality (such as the parks known as 'Pine Needles' and 'Valhalla'). 34The Tribunal sees no reason given the evidence before it in these applications, to depart from the findings in the earlier decisions. The Tribunal therefore finds that there are no comparable residential parks in the locality or a similar locality to the Park. The value of the residential premises (s 57(b)) 35The Tribunal does not consider this factor to be a matter weighing heavily in the decision in these proceedings. The frequency and amount of past rent increases (s 57(c)) 36Rents have been increased regularly over the past five years. The last increase, as noted earlier, was an amount of $11.00 per week and was set by the consent orders of the Tribunal in August 2012. A general price index such as the Consumer Price Index (s 57(d)) 37The Sydney CPI 2012/2013 is 2.1%. 38This criterion must be considered in conjunction with all other criteria in s 57. There is no basis to support the applicants' submission that the rent increase must be limited to the CPI figure. The conduct of the parties (s 57(e)) 39There is no relevant evidence in this criterion. Outgoings in respect of the residential premises required to be borne by the park owner under the residential tenancy agreement (s 57(f)) The estimated cost of any services provided under the residential tenancy agreement (s 57(g)) 40The applicants submit that the Park's operating costs have not increased. This submission is at odds with the evidence brought by the Park Owner: see, for example, the Statutory Declaration of the Park Owner's book keeper, Gina Tyler, made on 12 February 2014. 41The applicants further submit that the Park Owner has not provided sufficient particulars of the manner of calculation of the rent increases to enable the Tribunal to make an informed decision. The Tribunal does not accept this submission as in substance it attempts to shift the onus of proof to the Park Owner to justify its increases rather than the applicants bearing the onus of proving that an increase in rent is excessive. The value and nature of any fittings, appliances or other goods, services or facilities (s 57(h)) 42The applicants submit that the infrastructure in many parts of the Park needs serious attention. This submission is refuted by the Park Owner who submits that the Park's facilities are maintained in good working order. The accommodation and amenities provided in a residential premises and the state of repair and general condition of the premises (s 57(i)) 43The applicants submit that the community areas are inadequate. In particular it is said that the bistro seats a maximum of eighty people which is about twenty percent of possible residents of the Park. Similarly it is said that the community hall is incapable of accommodating all residents. 44On the other hand, the Park Owner submits that the Park is a superior quality facility in a pleasant waterside setting close to shops and services. It points to awards of excellence from the Caravan, Camping and Touring Industry & Manufactured Housing Industry Association of New South Wales (see Certificate for 2013 in the category "Best Manufactured Home Village/Estate"). Any work done to the premises by or on behalf of the resident to which the Park Owner has consented (s 57(j)) 45There is no relevant evidence in this criterion. Any other relevant matter (s 57(k)) 46The applicants contend that the external amenities and roads and drainage are unsatisfactory. 47However, as indicated earlier in these Reasons, the Park Owner has led evidence, which is accepted by the Tribunal, as to the good state of repair and general serviceability of the Park's facilities including its internal roads The Tribunal finds that the Park Owner has adequately maintained the Park and that there has been no reduction or withdrawal of services and facilities. 48There is another matter raised by the applicants in the written submissions. The Park is in close proximity to the local council's sewage treatment plant. It is contended by the applicants that bad odours emanating from the plant affect residents' amenity and enjoyment of their sites and that dirty and smelly water has come through pipes in certain areas of the Park. However, the Park Owner has produced evidence that all environmental guidelines have been observed and that it is committed to liaising with the local council, who operates the plant, to ensure proper odour control facilities are put in place by the council. DECISION 49Taking into account all of the matters outlined above, the Tribunal is of the view that a rent increase of $21.00 is excessive. 50Across the range ($165.11 per week to $246.15 per week) of different rents now applying to these applications, such rise in rents payable comprise an increase of between (approximately) 9.3% and 14.6% on the rents which were payable by the applicants during the period from 3 January 2013 to 2 January 2014. This rise is, of course, well above the Sydney 2012/2013 CPI of 2.1%. 51In the Tribunal's opinion, the significant s 57 factors in issue on these applications are: The general market level of rents for comparable premises within the Park; The frequency and amount of past rent increases; The increase in the CPI; The increased cost of maintaining the Park (outgoings) and the services provided by the Park Owner. 52Further, given the nature and impact of the significant s 57 factors as outlined above, the Tribunal considers an 'across the board' increase rather than (as the applicants contend) a percentage increase on each site, is warranted in the circumstances. 53While the Tribunal has, as required by the legislation, given consideration to the other factors or criteria in s 57 (i.e. those which are not specifically referred to in the preceding two paragraphs), it finds such other factors give rise to, or bear upon, facts matters and circumstances which are not material, or which do not weigh heavily, or at all, in the present proceedings. 54Moreover, the Tribunal finds that the significant s 57 factors must be balanced against each other so that one factor is not given more weight than any other. Just as the Park Owner puts emphasis on market rent within the Park and argues strongly that the applicants should pay the same rent for similar sites, the applicants argue with equal vigour that there should be no increase in rent above the increase in the relevant CPI. In fact neither factor is decisive. 55The Tribunal accepts that the costs of maintaining the Park and its services justify an increase over and above the CPI. However, the Tribunal also cannot find that an increase of $21.00 per week whether on the basis outlined in appendix 8 of the Park Owner's written submissions, or on any other basis, can be supported in circumstances where rents have increased steadily in the past and the most recent increase (the subject of consent orders of 22 August 2012) was $11.00 per week. 56Using its best endeavours to make a determination that is fair and equitable in the circumstances and having regard to the requirements of s 57 of the RP Act, the Tribunal finds that a rent increase of no more than $10.00 per week is appropriate for the twelve month period commencing 3 January 2014: see the Table of Weekly Rents in Dispute which is an Annexure to these Reasons. Any amount of rent which has been overpaid since 3 January 2014 as a result of these orders is to be returned to the applicant(s), whether by way of credit on the rent ledger or direct refund. D Charles General Member Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales 25 June 2014 Amended 1 July 2014 ANNEXURE - TABLE OF WEEKLY RENTS IN DISPUTE Rent (per week) Rent (per week) Adjusted Rent Under Tribunal Orders 3/1/13 - 2/1/13 From 3/1/14 $ $ $ 153.70 143.90 164.70 154.11 144.11 165.11 156.89 146.89 167.89 159.51 149.51 170.51 159.88 149.88 170.88 160.32 150.32 171.32 167.28 157.28 178.28 168.24 158.24 179.24 170.29 160.29 181.29 170.57 160.57 181.57 171.40 161.40 182.40 171.67 161.67 182.67 171.90 161.90 182.90 172.10 162.10 183.10 172.41 162.41 183.41 173.14 163.14 184.14 173.40 163.40 184.40 177.48 167.48 184.48 177.71 167.71 188.71 179.74 169.74 190.74 180.28 170.28 191.28 181.11 171.11 192.11 183.75 173.75 194.75 184.00 174.00 195.00 184.33 174.33 195.33 185.12 175.12 196.12 185.35 175.35 196.35 197.98 187.98 208.98 220.20 210.20 231.20 227.34 217.34 238.34 232.08 222.08 243.08 234.04 224.04 245.04 234.59 224.59 245.59 235.15 225.15 246.15 I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. Registrar DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 04 September 2014