Lawrence v Mandorla 1224 Pty Ltd atf Mandorla 1224 Trust; Mandorla 1224 Pty Ltd aft Mandorla 1224 Trust v Lawrence [2025] NSWCATCD 58;

1. Both parties participated in the hearing, relied on oral and documentary evidence, and provided written submissions after the hearing. I have had regard to all of that material in reaching my decision.

1. Relevant sections of the Act are as follows.
2. Section 50 provides, relevantly:

50 Tenant's right to quiet enjoyment

(1) A tenant is entitled to quiet enjoyment of the residential premises without interruption by the landlord or any person claiming by, through or under the landlord or having superior title (such as a head landlord) to that of the landlord.

(2) A landlord or landlord's agent must not interfere with, or cause or permit any interference with, the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in using the residential premises.

Maximum penalty - 10 penalty units.

...

(4) This section is a term of every residential tenancy agreement.

51 Use of premises by tenant

(1) A tenant must not do any of the following -

...

(d) intentionally or negligently cause or permit any damage to the residential premises,

...

(3) On giving vacant possession of the residential premises, the tenant must do the following -

...

(b) leave the residential premises as nearly as possible in the same condition, fair wear and tear excepted, and, if there is a condition report, as set out in the condition report applicable to the premises when the agreement was entered into,

...

(4) In this section -

residential premises includes everything provided with the residential premises (whether under the residential tenancy agreement or not) for use by the tenant.

(5) This section is a term of every residential tenancy agreement.

81 Circumstances of termination of residential tenancies

(1) Termination only as set out in Act A residential tenancy agreement terminates only in the circumstances set out in this Act.

(2) Termination by notice and vacant possession A residential tenancy agreement terminates if a landlord or tenant gives a termination notice in accordance with this Act and the tenant gives vacant possession of the residential premises.

(3) Termination by order of Tribunal A residential tenancy agreement terminates if the Tribunal makes an order terminating the agreement under this Act.

(4) Other legal reasons for termination A residential tenancy agreement terminates if any of the following occurs -

...

(d) the tenant abandons the residential premises,

(e) the tenant gives up possession of the residential premises with the landlord's consent, whether or not that consent is subsequently withdrawn,

...

1. Sections 91 and 92 of the Act provide for termination orders based, respectively, on illegal use of the premises; and threat, abuse, intimidation or harassment.

1. The following factual matters are not in dispute, and I so find.
2. A residential tenancy agreement was entered into between the Tenant and the previous owner of the property, Mr and Mrs Ohff ("Previous Owner"), on 31 January 2018. It was in the nature of a caretaker agreement contemplated by section 9 of the Act. The premises that were the subject of the tenancy agreement were described as the cottage, carport and shed (and also later described by the Previous Owner as the cottage, garage and workshop.) In return for the right to occupy, the Tenant was to carry out specified duties on the property.
3. A contract of sale for the property was entered into between the Previous Owner and the Landlord, and the Previous Owner provided the Tenant with a notice of termination of the tenancy agreement requiring possession by 6 January 2025. Discussions took place between the Landlord and the Tenant about the possibility of the Tenant continuing to occupy the cottage and working on the farm.
4. On about 25 October 2024, the Previous Owner and the Landlord agreed, among other things, that the Tenant could continue to occupy the premises "rent free" for 12 weeks from settlement on 1 November 2024, being 24 January 2025, and the Previous Owner would pay the Landlord 12 weeks rent to cover that period at $550 per week. That agreement included:

"Household items and equipment as per contract to remain, other items that remain behind to become the property of the purchaser"

1. This agreement was communicated to the Tenant and effected an extension of the date of termination under the notice of termination to 24 January 2025.
2. On 1 November 2024, the sale of the property settled. On 5 November 2024, the Landlord rescinded a previously offered work contract and tenancy agreement, and confirmed the Tenant was to vacate by 24 January 2025. The Landlord also informed the Tenant no trucks were to enter or leave the property without his consent.
3. On 6 November 2024, the Tenant had a friend attend the premises in a truck, for which no permission had been given by the Landlord. This triggered a verbal altercation between the Tenant and the Landlord, and the circumstances giving rise to these proceedings then occurred, over the period up to 8 November 2024.

1. The Tenant's evidence and submissions included the following.
2. The Landlord closed the gate to the property and blocked access to leave the property, for the Tenant and visitors. The Tenant called the police. Whilst waiting for police, who attended some hours later, the Tenant manually disengaged the front gate so the visitor could leave. The police told the Landlord he could not block access to the driveway. After they left, the Landlord parked a Unimog truck in the middle of the driveway preventing large vehicles from passing it, and making it difficult for cars too.
3. The Tenant also felt intimidated and harassed by motorcycles travelling up and down the driveway at speed, revving their engines.
4. On 7 November 2024, the Tenant lodged the application in 2024/414426,which stated:

"We are unable to have friends come to visit in trucks. He wouldn't allow our visitor or ourselves to leave the property. He is intimidating and threatening. We don't feel safe on the property and want to leave ASAP but he has the driveway blocked. Police have been involved to no avail"

1. Police attended again, and negotiated with the Landlord for the Unimog to be moved to allow the Tenant and visitors to leave the property with things that had been packed. It was negotiated that the Tenant would leave the property by 2pm on 8 November 2024, with the Tenant (Ms Anderson) informing police they considered it to be unsafe and wanted to leave as soon as possible.
2. Mr Karagounis then parked the Unimog truck across the front gate, moving it as he saw fit to allow access to and from the property and placing time restrictions on when access would be given, and inspecting vehicles leaving the property. This prevented free movement of the Tenant and visitors onto and off the premises. When leaving at about 2pm on 8 November, the Tenant stated they would be back to get the rest of their belongings but was told by the Landlord that no one would be entering the property.
3. Mr Karagounis and his associates engaged in repeated and deliberate conduct that intimidated the Tenant, severely interfered with their right to quiet enjoyment of the premises and made them fear for their safety. This conduct was intended to, and was successful in, effecting the dispossession of the premises from the Tenant. This resulted in the Tenant being homeless and having to lodge with family.
4. The tenancy remained on foot after they left the premises on 8 November 2024. The Tenant retained keys to the premises, and had left some items at the premises. They did not abandon the premises. They intended to remain at the premises for the period for which rent had been paid - up to 24 January 2025; and would have done so but for the conduct of the Landlord.
5. No items belonging to the Landlord were taken from the property - they all belonged to the Tenant or family members. The Landlord has not provided any evidence of ownership, or of value of the items.
6. The Landlord did not suffer any loss from the Tenant not handing back possession of the premises because rent was paid up until 24 January 2025.
7. The Landlord has failed to mitigate its loss arising from any abandonment by the Tenant. The Tribunal application was not lodged until 29 January 2025.

1. The Landlord gave a reasonable direction for no trucks to be brought onto the property without his approval. This was because of concerns about the Tenant's conduct, the theft of items from the property and the safety, insurance and bio-security risks of having large trucks on the property. The Tenant disregarded the direction. The Landlord then instituted a process to limit access by trucks to the property to prevent the unlawful activity and to mitigate the Landlord's insurance risk. The Tenant's use of their premises or contact by visitors for residential purposes was not impeded.
2. The dispute between the parties occurred over the period from 6 to 8 November. During that time, the Tenant and their associates made various threats against the Mr Karagounis and the property, including a threat by a convicted criminal to sabotage the property and to make allegations to about infidelity.
3. The Tenant abandoned the premises on 8 November 2024. They did not remove all items from the premises, and did not return all keys and access devices. As a result of the Tenant's failure to give vacant possession, the Landlord has not had the use or benefit of the premises since 8 November 2024. It has not been able to rent out the premises or arrange another caretaker for the property.
4. The Landlord did not direct the Tenant to leave the premises earlier than the termination date of 24 January 2025. The Tenant has not suffered any loss or damage and is not entitled to any compensation.
5. Mr Karagounis has suffered ongoing threats and harassment since the Tenant left the premises.
6. Up until the hearing on 12 March 2025, the tenant sought return of items left at the property. They did not take up previous offers by the landlord to have a third party collect the items. The landlord seeks compensation for the cost of storing the items from 8 November 2024 and the cost of removing and disposing of those items.

Interference with the Tenant's peace, comfort and privacy in using the premises

1. It is appropriate to consider the Tenant's claims jointly, as being illegally locked out of the premises is an example of interference with reasonable peace, comfort and privacy in using the premises.
2. I am satisfied that the Landlord's actions on 6 to 8 November 2024 amounted to interference with reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of the Tenant in using the premises, by restricting access to and from the premises for the Tenant and visitors. I am also satisfied that the manner of driving motorbikes up and down the driveway was beyond what was necessary in the ordinary course of events, and was designed to, and did, intimidate and harass the Tenant and their visitors.
3. It is clear that the relationship between the parties had broken down over 5 and 6 November 2024, with both parties involved in heated discussions. I am satisfied that both sides contributed to that situation. However a Landlord cannot unilaterally alter the terms of the tenancy agreement. Whilst safety, insurance and bio-security might be legitimate concerns, they do not enable the Landlord to unilaterally impose restrictions on a Tenant's movements onto and off the premises when those restrictions did not previously exist. To do so was interference with the Tenant's quiet enjoyment of the premises.
4. There was police involvement after claims of theft, and police attended on a number of occasions. It seems a practical outcome of allowing the Landlord to check what was being removed from the property was instituted, but there were delays caused by the Landlord during that process and I am satisfied that the Landlord acted in a manner that interfered with the tenant's reasonable peace, comfort and privacy in using the premises.
5. I am satisfied that the Tenant felt harassed and intimidated by the actions of the Landlord to the extent that they decided to move from the premises. This is the most likely explanation as to why the Tenant would leave on 8 November 2024, in circumstances where rent had been paid by a third party to allow them to stay for another 11 weeks, they had no alternative premises lined up to move to, it was difficult to pack and move in such a short timeframe and belongings had to be placed in storage.
6. I am satisfied that the Tenant has suffered loss or damage as a result of the Landlord's breach, because of what they endured on 6 to 8 November 2024 and as they have lost the benefit of being able to peacefully reside in the premises for another 11 weeks.
7. I am satisfied that compensation in the sum of $2,200 should be paid. In arriving at this sum, I take into account the impact of the Landlord's breach on the Tenant, whilst the Tenant had no alternative premises lined up, they stayed with family and there is no evidence of economic loss, and that the Landlord had received the sum of $6,600 from the Previous Owner (but not from the Tenant) for the Tenant to remain for a period of 12 weeks, until 24 January 2025.

1. I am satisfied that the tenancy was terminated when the Tenant vacated the premises on 8 November 2024, pursuant to section 81(1)(e) of the Act - that is, by the tenant giving up possession of the residential premises with the landlord's consent. I am satisfied that was the outcome of the position negotiated with the assistance of police - that the Tenant would vacate on 8 November 2024 by 2.00pm. This was agreed to by the Landlord. In those circumstances, it cannot be said that the Tenant abandoned the premises. (See for example Lethorn v Wagenheim [2020] NSWCATAP 199.)
2. It does not matter that the Tenant retained keys, had some belongings still at the premises, and subsequently asserted that the tenancy was still on foot. The termination of the tenancy took place by operation of law pursuant to section 81(4)(e). When the tenant left the premises on 8 November 2024, it was on the basis that they would not reside at the premises anymore. There were some items left that the Tenant indicated they wanted, but they were giving up possession of the premises as their residence, and that effected the termination of the tenancy.
3. (It is possible that, alternatively, section 81(2) of the Act applied - giving of possession after termination notice given. However, I consider the preferable classification of what occurred is termination under section 81(4)(e) as the Tenant gave possession as a result of the negotiated position entered into on 7 November 2024, not because they were purporting to vacate in accordance with the termination notice (which did not require them to vacate until 24 January 2025).)

1. Up until the hearing on 12 March 2025, the Tenant sought return of items remaining at the premises. At the hearing, that claim was withdrawn and it was suggested compensation for those items was sought. I am not satisfied any amount of compensation should be allowed for the following reasons. No evidence of the value of the items is provided. Further, the Landlord offered for a third party to collect the items. Whilst the Tenant has suggested that belongings were left at the premises because the tenancy was ongoing, I have found that was not the case. In my view, the Tenant, acting reasonably, would have negotiated with the Landlord an acceptable way of recovering any items wanted.
2. In the circumstances, including that the Tenant no longer wants the items, the Landlord may dispose of any items left behind by the Tenant in any manner it sees fit.

Compensation to landlord for items left behind and lost rent

1. I am also not satisfied that the Landlord should receive any compensation for the cost of storage, and disposing, of the items, nor for loss of rent as a result of the Tenant not removing all items from the premises. Whilst offering to the Tenant to negotiate for the retrieval of the items, the Landlord did not take any steps to ensure the items were removed and/or disposed of in a timely manner. No notice under the Uncollected Goods Act 1995 was given, and the application to the Tribunal (2025/36191) was not made until end January 2025. Had the application been lodged as provided for in the directions on 25 November 2024 - that is, by 9 December 2024 - the whole dispute might have been resolved shortly after the hearing listed on 30 January 2025. Further, no evidence of any costs incurred in storage of goods has been provided, and the Landlord had the benefit of rent paid for the premises up to 24 January 2025.

1. The Tribunal's jurisdiction in regard to items taken by the Tenant is limited to the situation where that is a breach of the tenancy agreement. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal generally with all disputes between the parties.
2. As set out in section 51 above, a tenant may breach their obligations under the tenancy agreement by intentionally or negligently damaging, or removing at the end of the tenancy, items provided by the landlord with the premises for use by the tenant. Such items would, in the usual course, be documented in an inventory attached to the ingoing condition report.
3. The situation in the present case is different. The Landlord's claim is in respect of items that he claims passed to him upon settlement of the sale of the property. The Tenant claims (to the extent items have been removed) that the items belonged to them, including items they were given by the Previous Owner. They were never items provided as part of the tenancy. In the circumstances, I am not satisfied the Landlord has established a breach of the tenancy agreement by the Tenant and it follows that this claim for compensation is dismissed.
4. In any case, I am satisfied that the anvil was given to the Tenant by the Previous Owner. The text message from the Previous Owner to the Tenant, properly read, confirms that, and clarifies that [only] the belongings of Mandorla Valley (that is, the Previous Owner) remaining following settlement of the sale became the property of the Landlord. The anvil no longer belonged to the Previous Owner at the time of settlement and therefore did not become the property of the Landlord, notwithstanding it was still on the property.

1. Many other matters raised by the Landlord, including claimed harassment since 8 November 2025, are not matters falling within the Tribunal's tenancy jurisdiction, and it is not necessary to specifically address them.

1. The Landlord is to pay the Tenant the sum of $2,200 within 7 days of the date of this decision.
2. In its post-hearing submissions, the Landlord referred to receiving keys and access devices in the post. The Tenant is encouraged to return any keys or access devices still held or, if none, inform the Landlord that that is the case.

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.