If ever there was a reminder for landlords to remain collected and evenly keeled, it is Wicjhita Holdings Limited vs Ross, Helena.
Boy… what a case.
 
Background
Helena Ross’ tenancy from Wicjhita Holdings Limited (“WHL”) was subject to an earlier Tribunal decision which resulted in a termination and money order
against the landlord, WHL.
 
Application 4090334 to which this commentary relates concerns post-tenancy monetary claims by WHL covering rent arrears, pool cleaning, paddock hire for
grazing cows (yes, you read that right), lightbulbs, ground management, repairs to furniture, carpet cleaning, and commercial cleaning on exit. Additionally,
the landlord also sought exemplary damages (for some damages, tampering of electrical, intimidation of landlord) and what is really a hybrid restraining-trespass
order against Ms. Ross and her husband.
 
In a case that involved the SPCA, the police, trespass notices, a fired property manager, and an acerbic pool inspector (read here),
to describe parties’ relations as acrimonious would be to put it very, very mildly.
 
Outcome
There are four parts to the landlord’s claim: rent arrears, compensation, exemplary damage, and a restraining order. The last claim is clearly ultra vires
to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is quickly dispensed with. As facts relating rent arrears are fairly straightforward, the adjudicator assented
to the application without much fanfare.
 
Of interest to this commentary are the claims of compensation and exemplary damage. Considering the landlord is awarded only $250 out of the $1,742 compensation
claim (not even 15%) with no exemplary damage, we must ask the question – Why has this application gone so spectacularly wrong?
 
When you go through the language...