NSW Caselaw
Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Murphy v Pitt [2017] NSWCATCD 44 Hearing dates: 9 May 2017 Decision date: 06 June 2017 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: G.J. Sarginson, Senior Member Decision: 1. The respondent ('the landlord') is to pay the applicants ('the tenants') the amount of $3,490.00 immediately Catchwords: Residential tenancies---Premises capable of lawful occupation---Breach of landlord's obligation---Assessment of damages Legislation Cited: Residential Tenancies Act 2010 ss 49, 51, 52, 187 Residential Tenancies Act 1987 s 20 Residential Tenancies Regulation Reg 22 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 s121B Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 s 41 Cases Cited: Jackson v NSW Land and Housing Corporation [2014] NSWCATAP 22 North v Marra Developments Ltd [1981] HCA 68,(1981) 148 CLR 42 Bygrave v Harris and O'Brien [2012] NSWCTTT 268 Karl Suleman Enterprises Pty Ltd (in liquidation) v Babanour [2004] NSWCA 214 Commonwealth v Amman Aviation Pty Ltd [1991] HCA 54, (1991), 174 CLR 64 Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341; 156 ER 145 Clark v Macourt [2013] HCA 56, (2013) 304 ALR 220 JLW (Vic) Pty Ltd v Tsiloglau [1994] VicRp 16; (1994) 1 VR 237 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Kieran and Jeanine Murphy (applicants) Janelle Pitt (respondent) Representation: Applicants: In person Respondent: In person File Number(s): RT 17/10173 Publication restriction: Nil
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate