9 August 2024, 8 October 2024, 7 February 2025 and 4 June 2025

Osher v De Meneghi (Residential Tenancies) [2025] VCAT 725

1. For the written reasons provided the tenant has proved her claims for compensation as below:

• - Omega Watch $7,000.00
• - Ruby and diamond gold ring $7,500.00
• - 2 Laptop computers $600.00
• - iPad $200.00
• - Filing cabinet $80.00
• - Archive boxes $15.00
• - Birth certificate $102.70

• - General inconvenience $300.00
• - Sentimental value $4,000.00

1. The residential rental provider must now pay the renter compensation of $19,797.70.

1. This is a dispute that involves the disposal of possessions including goods and personal documents belonging to the tenant Ms Ruth (Rifka) Osher from the unit she rented from Ms De Meneghi (the 'rented premises'). The Tribunal has been tasked with determining whether those possessions were disposed of unlawfully and whether compensation is payable to Ms Osher as a result.
2. Ms Osher applied to VCAT on 31 March 2022 seeking compensation. I will use the terms "tenant" and "landlord" in these reasons for decision. That is because it was the terminology used in the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (Vic) ('the Act') as in force at the time of the events in August 2017, that are the basis of this application. References to the "landlord" and/or the "owner of the premises" include actions of their agent unless expressly stated otherwise.[1]
3. In prior related proceedings, VCAT had made orders terminating the rental agreement and declaring that Ms Osher had vacated the premises on 3 August 2017. On 6 July 2017, VCAT made an order for immediate possession of the rented premises for rent arrears. A warrant of possession was purchased on 21 July 2017 and returned executed on 7 August 2017. In a further proceeding VCAT awarded the bond to the landlord.
4. On 23 August 2017 Yvonne Visser a representative from Consumer Affairs Victoria ('CAV') attended the rented premises at the request of the property manager from Century 21Wentworth Real Estate. Ms Osher and the property manager were also in attendance.[2]
5. The CAV representative hand-wrote the following document on a ruled notepad page:

I Rifka Osher former tenant of 1/291 Nepean Highway, Seaford have spoken with Yvonne Visser - Residential Tenancies Inspector - Consumer Affairs Victoria. Yvonne Visser has explained my rights to me under the legislation.

I understand that the estate agents have given me till close of business Friday 25 August 2017 to remove my goods left behind at 1/291 Nepean Highway Seaford.

Any goods left behind after close of business 25 August 2017 I authorise the agent to dispose of.

1. The document was signed by Ms Visser, Ms Osher and "Century 21 Wentworth" with the actual signature appearing to be that of the property manager.
2. On 25 August 2017 Ms Osher and the property manager attended the premises for the purpose of removing the possessions. However, before she had removed her possessions, Ms Osher collapsed and was taken to hospital in an ambulance. She was admitted to a psychiatric ward and remained there until 2 October 2017.
3. The property manager contacted Ms Osher's daughter Jordan, advising that her mother had collapsed and had been taken to hospital. According to the tenant's submissions and Jordan's evidence, when Jordan arrived at the rented premises, she was told that she had ten minutes to collect her mother's possessions. Jordan retrieved her mother's cats and personal items that her mother would need for her hospital stay. Jordan claims that she was given a marker and told to label items in boxes that belonged to her mother, which she did. She said she was assured by the property manager that they wouldn't be disposed of, and that any other items could not be disposed of for 90 days in any case.
4. According to the submissions on her behalf, Ms Osher phoned the agency regarding her possessions on 4 October 2017. Evidence was submitted that emails were exchanged between Ms Osher and the property manager on 17 October 2017 in which Ms Osher was informed that her possessions had been destroyed.
5. Following her discharge from hospital, Ms Osher experienced an extended period of homelessness and was again admitted to hospital on 31 July 2018 due to serious mental health issues. Ms Osher claims that the destruction of her personal documents including her "100 points" of identification led, at least in part, to her being unable to secure accommodation.
6. Ms Osher claims that the goods and personal documents that were destroyed included items of significant value including an expensive watch and ring both of which were important family heirlooms that had been passed down from Ms Osher's grandmother after having survived the Holocaust. There were also other items of significant sentimental value such as mementos that she had been saving from raising her children.
7. Ms Osher is claiming compensation for the destruction of her goods and personal documents under Part 9 of the Act, including compensation which might be summarised as the following:

(a) the value of lost goods and documents,

(b) consequential loss for being unable to secure a premises due to the disposal of her identification documents,

(c) non-economic loss suffered as a result of having items of significant sentimental value destroyed, and

(d) inconvenience suffered as a result of the destruction of her personal documents.[3]

1. The claim as originally filed had been amended on at least two occasions, primarily due to it exceeding VCAT's monetary jurisdiction for claims under the Act, and for seeking to rely on penalty provisions as a basis for compensation_._ The settled claim at the date of the last hearing is contained in the document filed for Ms Osher on 4 September 2024 and referred to in its filename as the "final submission...". I will refer to it as such. [4]
2. Paragraph 2 of the final submission states:

...Ruth's claim is over the handling of her personal possessions at the property, which were all destroyed eventuating in the loss of items of family history, including items from survivors of the holocaust. Ruth's identification for herself and her daughters. The personal items that were disposed of were mostly priceless, a lot of which were memories that cannot be replaced, photos of Ruth's childhood, photos of Ruth's children with her grandfather, ultrasound pictures before the birth of the children, baby teeth, school reports and achievements and all of their identification including birth certificates, medical records, citizenship papers and passports.

1. Paragraph 12 contains the below list of items for which compensation is claimed;

1. Part 9 of the Act outlines the steps that must be taken when goods and/or documents are left behind in a rented premises.
2. The items that Ms Osher claims were disposed of are a mix of goods and personal documents. Different statutory provisions apply to each.
3. Section 380 of the Act as in force on 3 August 2017, the vacate date, sets out the responsibilities of the owner of the premises when documents are left behind.

Section 380 What happens if personal documents are left behind?

If a tenant, resident or site tenant leaves behind personal documents, the owner of premises -

S. 380(a) amended by No. 45/2002 s. 66(a).

(a) must take reasonable care of the personal documents for a period of 90 days; and

(b) may remove but must not destroy or dispose of the personal documents, except in accordance with this Part; and

S. 380(c) amended by Nos 45/2002 s. 66(b), 67/2010 s. 48(2).

(c) must take reasonable steps to notify the former tenant, resident or site tenant as to when and from where the documents may be collected.

1. Section 381 of the Act allowed the owner of the premises to dispose of the personal documents if not reclaimed after 90 days.
2. Section 386 of the Act as in force on 3 August 2017 outlines the steps that must be taken in relation to goods left behind other than those which may be removed and destroyed or disposed of under section 384 of the Act, which states as follows:

Section 384 Disposal of certain goods left behind

(1) If goods have been left behind, the owner of premises may remove and destroy or dispose of the goods if -

(2) If goods of monetary value have been left behind, the owner of premises may remove and destroy or dispose of those goods if the total estimated cost of the removal, storage and sale of all those goods combined is greater than the total monetary value of all those goods combined.

(3) Subsection (2) does not apply to goods to which subsection (1) applies.

Section 386 What must a landlord do about goods which are left behind?

(1) A former landlord must store goods (other than goods which may be removed and destroyed or disposed of under section 384) which are left behind on the premises in a safe place and manner for not less than 28 days.

(2) Before the end of 7 days after goods are stored under subsection (1), the former landlord -

(a) if the former tenant has given a forwarding address, must send a notice to the former tenant in the prescribed form at that address; or

(b) if the former tenant has not given a forwarding address, must cause notice in the prescribed form to be inserted in a newspaper circulating generally throughout Victoria.

Did the owner of the premises dispose of Ms Osher's personal documents and goods in accordance with the Act?

1. As noted above, VCAT found that Ms Osher vacated the rented premises on 3 August 2017.
2. Under section 380(a) the owner of the premises must take reasonable care of personal documents for 90 days from the termination of the tenancy. In this case the 90-day period expired on 1 November 2017.
3. Ms Osher gave oral evidence that she phoned the property manager on 4 October 2017 to enquire about her belongings and was told they had been disposed of. Ms Osher received written confirmation in writing via email on 17 October 2017 that her documents had been destroyed. According to the evidence, the latest date the documents could have been destroyed is 17 October 2017, which is only 75 days after the premises was found by VCAT to have been vacated. Therefore, the owner of the premises has failed to comply with the Act with respect to the disposal of personal documents.
4. With regards to goods that were not personal documents, the Act as in force required that the goods, other than those caught by the exceptions in section 384:

(a) be stored safely for 28 days; and

(b) that a notice in the prescribed form be sent to the former tenant's forwarding address; or inserted into a newspaper circulating generally throughout Victoria.

No evidence has been presented to the Tribunal that any of those things were done. Therefore, the owner of the premises has not complied with the Act with respect to the disposal of goods that were not personal documents.

Does the document signed on 23 August 2017 allow for the disposal of the documents and other goods other than in accordance with the Act?

1. In my view there are two parts to this question. The first is whether the signed document amounted to consent by Ms Osher for the owner to dispense with the requirements under the Act and whether such consent absolved the landlord of the duty to comply. The second part of the question is whether the landlord could continue to rely on the signed document after the events of 25 August 2017.
2. The Act is prescriptive in relation to the circumstances under which the owner of the premises may dispose of a former tenant's personal documents and goods. It is noted that disposal based on the consent of the former tenant is not expressly provided as one of these circumstances.
3. It is reasonable to conclude that the purpose of the section is to protect the tenant on the one hand, while providing a mechanism for a landlord to legally dispose of goods and personal documents.
4. The second paragraph of the document, "I understand that the estate agents have given me till close of business Friday 25 August 2017 to remove my goods left behind at 1/291 Nepean Highway Seaford", reads more like a demand than an agreement. If this document is seen as a contract, it is difficult to see how Ms Osher had received anything for the bargain. In other words, under the circumstances, there had been a failure of consideration. Without consideration, that is without Ms Osher receiving some benefit in return, it could not be considered a legally binding contract. In any case, I'm not convinced that there is any provision that would allow the landlord to contract out of their statutory obligations with respect to Part 9 of the Act.[5]
5. Therefore, I find that the landlord could not rely on the document of 23 August 2025 to avoid compliance with the clear steps outlined in the Act. In my view it was an impermissible attempt to contract out of the Act, and the document could not be seen to be a binding contract in any case, because there was no evidence that Ms Osher received anything for the bargain beyond what she was already entitled to. In fact, on the evidence, the document sought to diminish Ms Osher's rights. It would also seem probable that Ms Osher was in a vulnerable state when she signed the above-mentioned document on 23 August 2017, only two days prior to her collapse.
6. Even if I was to find that it was an otherwise valid binding agreement, it would have been unconscionable for the landlord to rely on the agreement in circumstances where Ms Osher was unable to remove her goods at the purported agreed time, due to her sudden collapse and subsequent hospitalisation. I therefore find that the landlord was not entitled to dispose of Ms Osher's goods including personal documents, and Ms Osher is entitled to be compensated for the loss of those goods.

1. Ms Osher claims compensation for the loss of her items that are of ascertainable economic value. She also claims non-economic loss in relation to items that have significant sentimental value but little or no economic value. Additionally, she is claiming consequential loss due to becoming homeless. She claims her homelessness was caused by the fact that her documents had been disposed of, preventing her from leasing another premises.
2. There is a further question in relation to the additional sentimental value of goods with significant economic value, such as the ring with a valuation of $7,500.00, and a watch valued at $7,000.00, both of which had according to Ms Osher, survived the Holocaust. They were significant family heirlooms that had been passed down to Ms Osher by her grandmother. It is reasonable that the value of these items to Ms Osher far exceed their economic valuation.
3. I have also considered whether Ms Osher had taken any steps to mitigate her loss. It is difficult to imagine anything that Ms Osher could have done in mitigation in the circumstances of this case.

1. Ms Osher gave clear sworn oral evidence about the existence and subsequent loss of each of the items in her claim. She gave me no reason to doubt her evidence, which I found to be honest and persuasive. No evidence was given on behalf of the landlord that could reasonably rebut Ms Osher's claim. I find on the balance of probabilities that each of the items claimed was disposed of by or on behalf of the landlord.
2. Following is my analysis of Ms Osher's claims for economic loss.

1. Ms Osher claims that her ring and watch, together with their valuation certificates had been left at the premises in a filing cabinet, that was in a cupboard under the staircase. She claimed that these were among the items disposed of by the landlord.
2. Ms Osher claims that she had taken the ring and watch to a jeweller for valuation in 2005. She received a certificate valuing the ring at $7,500.00. Ms Osher says that she kept the valuation certificate in an envelope with the ring. She claims a certificate was also provided valuing the watch at $7,000.00.
3. Ms Osher's daughter gave oral evidence to support the valuations. She said that she was quite young at the time but remembered being surprised at the valuations because she had thought that they would be worth more than the valuations they were given at the time.
4. The written submissions of the landlord highlight that Ms Osher is unable to provide written receipts or valuations for the watch and ring. They also question why Ms Osher would leave such important and high value items at the premises. In my view, given Ms Osher's circumstances at the time, it wasn't unreasonable for her to have left the items at the premises. It was reasonable for her to expect compliance with the law in relation to the items that had been left at the premises. It was reasonable to expect therefore that they would be safe. Ms Osher was facing significant stressors and mental health challenges at the time. It is reasonable that she wouldn't have been planning contingencies in case the landlord failed to comply with their legal obligations.
5. It is to be noted that the difficulty in proving the valuation of Ms Osher's items has been caused by the landlord disposing of them. Because Ms Osher no longer has the watch and the ring, she is unable to take them to be valued. In Jianwei Liu v State of New South Wales,[6] it was found that in circumstances where the difficulty in calculating the value was caused by the wrongdoer, it is open to the Court to make an assessment in the upper end of the range.
6. Jianwei Liu cites Armory v Delamirie[7] as an authority for that proposition. Armory v Delamirie is a case dating back to 1722, about a 'chimney sweeper's boy' who took a jewel he found to a goldsmith to be valued. The goldsmith's apprentice took the jewel and offered a small sum. The boy declined the offer and the goldsmith's apprentice returned the 'socket without the stones'. The case sets out three 'points'. The third point, that is relevant to the question of calculating damages is

3. As to the value of the jewel several of the trade were examined to prove what a jewel of the finest water that would fit the socket would be worth; and the Chief Justice directed the jury, that unless the defendant did produce the jewel, and shew it not to be of the finest water, they should presume the strongest against him, and make the value of the best jewels the measure of their damages: which they accordingly did.

1. No evidence was presented as to whether the items had indeed appreciated in value. However, I would assess it would be reasonable to conclude on the balance of probabilities that they would have. If Ms Osher was in possession of the watch and ring and if she was able to take them to be valued, it would seem probable that they would be worth more now than they had been when valued in 2005. This is another factor that, in addition to the principle in Armory v Delamirie, leads me to conclude that the sum claimed for each of these items is reasonable.
2. I find the evidence that has been provided by Ms Osher and her daughter in relation to the existence, disposal and valuation of these items to be credible. Because the difficulty in assessing quantum has been caused by the landlord, I find that the principles in Jianwei Liu and Armory v Delamirie apply and that the value of the items has been supported by evidence. I will allow Ms Osher's claim of $7,500.00 for the ring and $7,000.00 for the watch.
3. Whether an additional amount ought to be allowed with respect to non-economic loss in relation to the watch and ring is considered in paragraphs 85 and 86 of these reasons.

1. Ms Osher claims that two laptop computers belonging to her were disposed of. She claims $336.00 with respect to one of the laptops and $647.00 with respect to the other.
2. Precise details weren't provided about the models and age of the computers. The prices claimed do not seem to be excessive. The fact that Ms Osher no longer has these items adds to the difficulty in calculating their value. Taking this into account I will make a reasonable estimate.
3. likely depreciation, I will allow $600.00 as the combined value of the computers.

1. Ms Osher claims a Nintendo DS console belonging to her daughter Taylor and 15 games.
2. Ms Osher is claiming $225.00 for the console and $105.00 in total for the 15 games. This is based on the second-hand price Ms Osher found on the Cash Converter's website.
3. In my view, considering the second-hand price of the items is claimed, the claim is reasonable. However, I am unable to award an amount in relation to these items because on the evidence presented, they do not belong to Ms Osher and she made no submission as to how she could claim compensation for items that she did not own.

1. Ms Osher claims $329.00 for her iPad. Ms Osher was unable to give precise information as to the value of the iPad and conceded that the figure she derived from her internet search might not necessarily correlate with the value of her iPad. As such I will allow a reduced figure of $200.00 as an estimate for the reasonable value of her iPad, considering that the difficulty in valuation is at least partly caused by the fact that she no longer has it.[8]

1. Ms Osher claims $139.00 for her filing cabinet based on pricing found on the Officeworks website. It was agreed during the hearing that the filing cabinet was not new.
2. I will allow $80.00 for the filing cabinet as an estimate of a fair value of the used filing cabinet.

1. $30.00 is claimed for the loss of approximately 15 archive boxes that contained the mementos from her daughters' childhoods. Little evidence was presented as to the value of the boxes. I consider $1.00 per box as a reasonable estimate of the value of the boxes in the absence of further evidence.
2. I allow $15.00 for the loss of the archive boxes.

1. Ms Osher claims the value of three passports, one belonging to her and two belonging to her daughters that were kept with her for safe keeping. She claims $398.00 for each of the passports. A total of $1,194.00.
2. Ms Osher concedes, after having further investigated the status of the passports, that Taylor's passport had expired and that her own passport would have either expired or been close to expiry.
3. Ms Osher submitted that her daughter Jordan's passport had eight years remaining to expiry. However, no evidence was presented to the Tribunal that the passport had been replaced or had been required between late 2017 and the last hearing in February 2025. Jordan's passport would have either expired or have been close to expiry by the date of the final hearing. There was no evidence that the passport was required during the period from 2017, therefore there was no actual loss proven in terms of the utility of the passport. Additionally, the loss of the passport is a loss to Jordan rather than Ms Osher.
4. I find no loss attributable to the disposal of the passports. The claim with respect to the passports is dismissed.

1. Ms Osher claims $102.70 each for her birth certificate and that of her daughter Taylor, totalling $205.70.
2. Ms Osher claims $54.00 for the loss of her daughter Jordan's British birth certificate.
3. Ms Osher claims $560.00 for the loss of her daughter Jordan's citizenship certificate.
4. I am satisfied that it is appropriate to allow $102.70 for the loss of Ms Osher's birth certificate. It is a direct loss to her. I do not allow compensation for her daughters' certificates because they are a loss to her daughters rather than Ms Osher.

Loss related to the destruction of identification documents

1. Ms Osher claimed that she was unable to secure a new rental due to the loss of her identification documents. She claims that this led to her living in her car for a period and living in a tent.
2. In my view there was insufficient evidence to show that her difficulties securing a new rental were because of the loss of her documents. The fact that she had been ordered to vacate the premises due to rent arrears would not have helped her prospects of securing a new rental premises, for example.
3. Even if causation was established, I don't consider that a loss has been proven. Had she secured a rental premises she would have needed to pay for her rent, utilities and living expenses otherwise.

1. It is established that compensation under sections 452 and 472 of the Act is not limited to economic loss and that the Tribunal is open to award amounts for general inconvenience[9]
2. While I haven't found there is sufficient evidence that the loss of her documents was the cause of her difficulties in securing accommodation, it is appropriate in my view to allow an amount for general inconvenience in relation to the loss of those documents.
3. I am satisfied that the loss of her documents, especially her identification documents caused significant inconvenience. I accept Ms Osher's evidence, as submitted, that she:

(a) experienced significant inconvenience trying to establish her identity without her documents after having left hospital; and-

(b) she had difficulty replacing her documents and establishing "100 points" of identification; and

(c) she experienced great inconvenience in seeking to apply for housing without sufficient identification documents.

1. Taking these factors into account, I allow $300.00 as appropriate compensation for general inconvenience.

Distress and disappointment/loss of items that are of sentimental value

1. Ms Osher claims $4,000.00 for the loss of items that have little market value but have a high value to her. These items include:

Photos of my grandparents and great grandparents, my mother (now passed) and father, all my baby photos from primary and secondary school, my daughters'especially my eldest as Jordan was born in Nth Ireland, pets, other family, friends... Archive boxes kept for both of my daughters. Each had things from the day they came home until the day they finished high school, photos, signed uniforms, detentions...(Approx 15-each one dated with the year). Journals/Diaries.

1. Ms Osher in a document titled "Ruth Osher, Impact Statement", filed and served with the Tribunal on 20 May 2024 states:

I kept everything that my girls did. Each year I would have an archive box for both girls. I would write their name and the year. Everything from their first coming home outfit, baby teeth and first haircut. Everything they did from the moment they held a pencil and scribbled something, all the way through to their final years at high school. They had certificates for achievements, sports, photos, camps, reports, awards, plays, captain badges, all their schoolwork and uniforms, all of which would go into the corresponding box and stored away once a new year began. Everything. Absolutely everything.

1. In this same document she goes on to explain the "shock" she experienced when she was told by the property manager that her belongings had been destroyed, after she enquired following her discharge from hospital
2. Given that the items described are of little monetary value, I will treat these as being a claim for non-economic loss and will describe this as Ms Osher's claim for non-economic loss. For ease of reading my references to non-economic loss below do not include the amount for general inconvenience that I have discussed above.
3. I articulated at the hearing on 7 February 2025 that I would be reserving my decision to consider the relevant law in relation to non-economic loss including relatively recent developments in relation to distress and disappointment following the decision of the High Court of Australia in Young v Chief Executive Officer (Housing)[10] ('Young's case'), and its applicability to this case.
4. Since reserving my decision, the honourable Justice Woodward, President of VCAT delivered a judgment that directly considered the applicability of Young's case in the context of a residential tenancy compensation application in Victoria.[11]
5. It is to be noted that his Honour expressed ...in my view, the application of the decision to breaches of rental agreements that do not involve the particular and unusual circumstances faced in Young v CEO , should be approached with caution.
6. His Honour helpfully lists what he considers to be the necessary factors for a sustainable claim for distress and disappointment under the principles in Young's case.[12] These are...

(a) identification of an obligation under the RTA or rental agreement that, having regard to the purposes of the RTA and the justice and equity of the case, is of a type that invites consideration of whether compensation for distress and disappointment is warranted;

(b) the purpose so identified will generally be one that aims to safeguard both the both physical and psychological well-being of the party - in Young v CEO the evident purpose of the obligation under the NT RTA to provide secure premises, was to ensure that the renter could reside in those premises free from threat of harm or unwanted access;

(c) satisfaction that the distress and disappointment is the direct consequence of the breach, not merely a mental reaction to the breach and resultant damage;

(d) finding a causal connection between a breach of the rental agreement and compensable loss or damage, which may require consideration of issues of the kind that would be addressed in the assessment of damages at common law under the rubric of remoteness; and

(e) ensuring that any compensation awarded does not give rise to double recovery.

1. In my view it is arguable that compensation for distress and disappointment would be available and warranted in this case. It would not be unreasonable to conclude in the circumstances of this case, that Ms Osher suffered distress and disappointment as a direct result of the breach itself, as a "normal, rational reaction of an unimpaired mind."[13]
2. However, I have concluded that I don't need to determine whether compensation for distress and disappointment is available. That is because Jianwei Liu provides an authority for the awarding of non-economic loss for the sentimental value of items. I am satisfied that it is appropriate to allow the full claim of $4,000.00 for non-economic loss for the sentimental value of the items lost.
3. In my view, it was reasonably foreseeable that Ms Osher's goods and personal documents may have significant sentimental value and that discarding them could likewise cause a significant non-economic loss.
4. The Supreme Court of NSW in Jianwei Liu allowed $2,500.00 for the sentimental value of a jade pendant in addition to its monetary value. The pendant had been seized and disposed of by NSW Police. It was a family heirloom that had been passed down to Mr Liu, who wore the pendant daily.
5. The Court found that the amount that ought to be awarded for sentimental value ought to be modest.[14]
6. In this case it is appropriate that Ms Osher be compensated for the loss of several items of significant sentimental value. The items that Ms Osher lists were of high sentimental value to her, having been carefully collected and saved over many years.
7. It was clear from the proceeding that Ms Osher's watch and ring were also of significant sentimental value. Particularly given her submissions that they were items that had been passed down to her from her grandmother, who had survived the Holocaust. It is reasonable to expect that the watch and the ring would have been passed down in Ms Osher's family for generations had they been returned to her.
8. Using the judgment in Jianwei Liu as a guide and considering inflation it would not be excessive to order compensation of more than $6,000.00 for the ring and the watch alone, given their significant importance to Ms Osher. I will not take the watch and ring into account in calculating non-economic loss because they were not listed alongside the other items that form the $4,000.00 claim. However, I do consider that this is a further head of damage that bolsters the amounts that I have already allowed in relation to the watch and ring.
9. In Jianwei Liu the Court found that $2,500.00 was an appropriate sum to compensate the plaintiff for the sentimental value of his pendant in 2014. In my view the sum of $4,000.00 that is sought by Ms Osher for the sentimental value of her multiple items lost is modest in the circumstances and proportionate to the amount awarded in Jianwei Liu. I therefore allow $4,000.00 for the sentimental value of the items.

1. The Act set out specific steps that had to be followed by the landlord when dealing with the goods and personal documents that had been left behind at the premises.
2. Those steps were not followed, and Ms Osher suffered a loss as a result.
3. Ms Osher's loss included economic loss for the market value of the goods that were discarded.
4. Ms Osher suffered non-economic loss for the sentimental value of the relevant items and general inconvenience associated with the loss of her identity documents.
5. It is appropriate that Ms Osher be compensated for her loss in the amounts set out in the order.

[1] It is noted that the application was made more than four years after the events but was within applicable limitation periods. Ms Osher had made enquiries for assistance from legal services that did not result in the lodging of an application at that time. It is also noted that Ms Osher continued to experience mental health issues in the period following the events, including a further hospitalisation. Her claim was ultimately lodged after eventually securing the assistance of a support worker that was able to assist her with the process.

[2] Neither the property manager nor a representative of Century 21 Wentworth Real Estate participated in the proceeding. They were not called as witnesses, nor was any form of witness statement filed on their behalf. The landlord was represented by a new agency who were not involved in the events that are the subject of this proceeding.

[3] It was established during the course of the proceeding that this may include non-economic loss characterised as distress and disappointment. It was further discussed at a directions hearing after the substantive hearings had concluded that an amount for inconvenience may also be considered, in relation to which the parties were given an opportunity to file written submissions. It is clear from these submissions and those given orally at the hearings that Ms Osher intends to claim amounts for economic loss and non-economic loss. Had the claim been lodged by a legal professional the non-economic loss might have been characterised as amounts for general inconvenience, disappointment and distress and compensation for the loss of items of sentimental value. It is not expected in the VCAT context that the documents produced by self-represented parties or non-professional advocates (referring to the definition of professional advocates in section (62(8) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic)) will be of the same standard as if they had been filed by a lawyer. In my view what was being claimed was clear in general terms and any lack of legal specificity cannot be said to result in unfairness to the landlord in this case.

[4] Ms Osher's claim initially sought compensation to be paid to her for "consumer affairs penalties". I explained to Ms Osher that such penalties are not available as compensation to the tenant, but a punishment issued to the landlord. Theses penalties cannot be ordered by VCAT but are ordinarily pursued by Consumer Affairs Victoria in the Courts.

[5] Ms Osher submits that the document does not apply to personal documents under the definition in the Act because the wording of the document only uses the word "goods" and does not refer to documents. It is not necessary to determine the precise meaning of the word "goods" in the document for the reasons discussed above.

[6] [2014] NSWSC 933 at [28] and [29], citing McCartney & Ors v Orica Investments Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 337 at [158] and [159].

[7] [1722] EWHC KB J94; (1722) 1 Strange 5O5; [1722] EWHC J94; 93 ER 664, KB.

[8] Applying the principle in Armory v Delamirie.

[9] See, for example: Reardon v Ministry of Housing (unreported, Supreme Court of Victoria, 13 November 1992 per Smith J) and Blatt v Black Dog Ashgrove (Residential Tenancies) [2023] VCAT 1060 at [107] to [112].

[10] [2023] HCA 31; (2023) 278 CLR 208.

[11] Anderson v Sharpe (Residential Tenancies) [2025] VCAT 415 at [215].

[13] Moore v Scenic Tours Pty Ltd [2020] HCA 17 at [41].

[14] Jianwei Liu v State of New South Wales [2014] NSWSC 933 at [35].