Dimunova v Vega [2017] NSWCATAP 5

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Dimunova v Vega [2017] NSWCATAP 5 Hearing dates: 8 December 2016 Date of orders: 06 January 2017 Decision date: 06 January 2017 Jurisdiction: Appeal Panel Before: S Westgarth, Deputy President R Titterton, Senior Member Decision: (1) Appeal upheld; and

(2) The proceedings are to be remitted to the Consumer and Commercial Division of the Tribunal for the purposes of conducting a rehearing before a differently constituted Tribunal Catchwords: Duty to maintain – premises in strata scheme Legislation Cited: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 Residential Tenancies Act 2010 Cases Cited: Holley v Evatt [2014] NSWCATAP 72 Moniaci v Erickson [2016] NSWCATAP 34 Texts Cited: Nil Category: Principal judgment Parties: Renata Terpakova Dimunova (Appellant) Jorge Andras Vega (Respondent) Representation: Counsel:

Solicitors: File Number(s): AP 16/29507 Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Citation: Not applicable Date of Decision: 14 June 2016 Before: C Marzilli, General Member File Number(s): RT 16/12605

reasons for decision

Background 1. This is an appeal from a decision made in the Consumer and Commercial Division of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) published on 14 June 2016. The Notice of Appeal was filed on 27 June 2016. 2. The appellant is a tenant who entered into a residential tenancy agreement with the respondent as landlord. The appellant brought an application against the landlord (the respondent in the proceeding below and the respondent on appeal) for compensation, and for an order reducing the rent payable on the basis that the premises were unusable or uninhabitable. 3. The decision under appeal (the Decision) made orders reducing the rent from 24 January 2016 to 24 February 2016 to the figure of "nil per week". In other words, during that period all rent was abated. In consequence, the Tribunal made an order that the respondent pay to the appellant the sum of $754.29. That figure was the rent for the period from 24 January 2016 to 24 February 2016 less the sum of $1,140.00 which had already been paid by the respondent to the appellant. 4. The circumstances giving rise to the application were that the premises (which was a unit in a strata scheme) became partly inundated with water because of a water leak in the common property. 5. For the reasons that follow, we have decided to uphold the appeal, and to remit the proceedings to the Tribunal (differently constituted) for rehearing.