(a) the respondent caused the flow for the purposes of section 16(1). She does not assert that the respondent's tenant caused the flow, for example by damaging the shower or blocking its drainage causing it to overflow, and she does not allege that the tenant's use of the shower for its intended purpose of washing 'caused the flow' within the meaning of this section. She says that the respondent caused the flow by failing or refusing to properly repair the shower in 1013; and

(b) if section 16(5) applied because the flow was given rise to by works constructed or any other act or omission on 1013 - such as defective building work when the apartment building was constructed - the respondent is properly to be regarded as 'the current occupier' of 1013 because he is the owner and landlord, and has failed to take the reasonable and appropriate step of repairing 1013 and stopping the leak. Implied in this aspect of the applicant's case, is that the tenant is not legally entitled to repair the shower, as it is the respondent's property.

1. The respondent filed and served quite detailed Points of Defence and written submissions and in substance made these points:

(a) water ingress into 913 in 2017 did not come from 1013, but came from a common sewer service duct which was common property vested in the Owners Corporation affecting the apartment building, as established by J & C Maloney Plumbers & Gasfitters in a report dated 24 April 2017.

(b) the apartment building was still under builder's warranty in 2017. The builder, Hickory, denied any responsibility. In April 2017 the respondent engaged Pro-Sealed Pty Ltd to conduct a standard epoxy shower service, and was prepared to engage Nifty Maintenance Pty Ltd to repair the bathroom ceiling of 913, but the applicant would not permit that repair to be done.

(c) a contractor engaged by the applicant in October 2022, Trojan Plumbing, did not report any water ingress into 913 from 1013, using the words 'all appears dry' in its report dated 1 November 2022. Trojan Plumbing also recommended that the applicant install a snap vent in the ceiling of 913's bathroom, for additional ventilation.

(d) without admission, when a leak detection report made on 1 November 2024 by The Leak Detector suggested that it was possible that water was seeping into 913 from 1013, the respondent engaged a contractor to undertake rectification work. Although it was not proven in November 2024 that 1013 was the source of water entering 913, this work ended the seepage and so ended any liability which the respondent may have had.

(e) the author of this report of November 2024 wrote that there was 'clearly ... no leak from 1013' and that the leak was 'probably coming from common area'.

(f) without admission, the respondent engaged Megasealed to perform shower rejuvenation, which was completed by 7 February 2025 and tested to be effective. The applicant deferred the repair of 913. This was her choice and not a necessity.

(g) on 21 March 2025 the respondent engaged Titan Plumbing to carry out a thermal test, to check the effectiveness of the Megasealed rejuvenation, and it reported that it had been effective. The respondent also engaged Mould Clean Australia to perform mould treatment on 913.

(h) on 19 May 2025 the applicant emailed the respondent advising that water was leaking. The respondent and his real estate agent inspected 913 and saw no leaking or trace of water. The applicant showed the respondent a video which she said had been taken on 12 May 2025. She said this showed intermittent leaking. The applicant would not allow Megasealed to inspect 913. This disadvantaged the respondent, because he could have made a claim on Megasealed under its warranty, if he obtained evidence of a leak in such an inspection. Megasealed reported that its work was still effective, but recommended that additional work be carried out on 1013.

(i) on 4 June 2025 the applicant took initial steps to join the Owners Corporation as a party to this proceeding. This caused the scheduled final hearing, which was to take place on 7 July 2025, to be adjourned to 2026. The applicant then advised that she did not seek to join the Owners Corporation.

(j) the applicant sent an email to Megasealed which caused it to 'quit'. The respondent then engaged Seal-A-Gap to carry out the further works which Megasealed had recommended. Seal-A-Gap completed that work by 15 October 2025. It issued a certificate of compliance to the effect that its works were carried out by certified, registered specialist tradespersons; that its work was supported by a five year warranty; and that its work complied with Australian Standard AS3740 - Waterproofing of Domestic Wet Areas. The respondent says the applicant has not produced any evidence contradicting Seal-A-Gap's certification or demonstrating that there have been any leaks since 15 October 2025.

(k) the respondent says that the applicant seeks to require the respondent to rectify the puddle flange[1] in the bathroom of 1013. The respondent says that because the respondent's title to 1013 only extends to the internal face of the building, the puddle flange lies outside his title and is not his responsibility.

(l) the respondent says that the applicant has not proven any connection between mould in the bathroom of 913, and his apartment 1013, and nor has the applicant proven that she installed additional ventilation in 913 as had been recommended by Trojan Plumbing on 1 November 2022.

(m) the respondent says that the applicant has sought an order that the respondent treat or repair the steel framing in 913, that lies beneath the concrete slab that serves as the floor of 1013 and the roof of 913, but that she has not produced any expert evidence in support of that claim or even evidence that the steel framing has been damaged.

(n) the respondent says that the applicant has sought an order that the respondent replace the plasterboard ceiling in the bathroom of 913, but that by 30 September 2024 when the applicant alleged there was a leak into that bathroom, its ceiling had been removed. The respondent also believes, on the basis of a comment made by the applicant, that a temporary cardboard panel had been installed in 2022, in lieu of replacing the ceiling.

(o) the respondent says that the applicant's claim for damages of $6,380.00 based on a quotation from Ultimate Work Solutions ('UWS') includes the cost of painting the bathroom wall and door which are unrelated to any water damage, and that the applicant herself has described a previous quote by UWS as excessive.

(p) the respondent says that the applicant's claim for damages for loss of rent should be dismissed because she has never leased out 913.

1. In effect, both parties have been self represented throughout this proceeding.[2] The applicant was briefly represented by legal practitioners until August 2025 and by Counsel in the hearing. From my observation I conclude that the legal practitioners had only little input during their retainer and that Counsel was briefed directly by the applicant very late in the piece, and certainly well after the applicant had defined her case by gathering all of her evidence and filing and serving her documents. It seemed to me that Counsel was put in the position of 'assisting' the applicant as a self-represented litigant, as distinct from 'running her case', because he had no instructions to seek an adjournment and was instructed to oppose any application by the respondent for an adjournment. Both the opening and closing submissions made by Counsel on behalf of the applicant were minimalist, and basically confined to stating the relief sought. Legislation was not discussed in any detail, and no authorities were cited. I note that on 10 September 2025 the applicant had written to the Tribunal and the respondent, saying that Counsel would appear for cross-examination and submissions, but that otherwise the applicant continued to represent herself.
2. The respondent is an executive, and English is his second language. He had required an interpreter to attend the hearing. This is not unusual in the Tribunal, as many parties speak English but want to be able to access an interpreter if technical language or legalese is used. The respondent had filed and served very well expressed written submissions and Points of Defence, and he spoke English fluently in the hearing. At one point early in the hearing he suggested that it would be 'unfair' if the interpreter did not translate everything in the hearing word for word. I was satisfied that such a level of translation would have been completely unnecessary and so time consuming that the hearing would have taken days (and thus have to be adjourned for months) and that the respondent fully understood English and would not be disadvantaged at all in the hearing as long as he had access to the interpreter. In the event he did not use the interpreter in the hearing.
3. With respect, the applicant had filed her documents in a very slipshod and disorganised way, quite contrary to the Tribunal's directions for the filing and service of documents, which required them to be set out in a logical and organised form.[3] This, and the absence of any considered submissions on behalf of the applicant, has increased the work required of the Tribunal but I can say that the respondent's written submissions and Points of Defence indicate that he was on top of the applicant's documents. The respondent might have had to spend longer than was perhaps reasonable in order to consider the applicant's documents, but he was sufficiently prepared to deal with the hearing.
4. Whilst both parties gave evidence in the hearing and were cross-examined, neither party called evidence from anyone else. They expressly relied on the various reports and documents written by plumbers and the like, without calling the authors of those reports. Sub sections 98(1) (b) and (c) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic) provides that the Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence or any practices or procedures applicable in courts of record, and that it may inform itself as it sees fit. Other sections, of course, bind the Tribunal to the rules of natural justice and require it to act fairly and according to law, and so sub sections 98(1) (b) and (c) are not a license to the Tribunal to abandon principle in the name of pragmatism. At the same time, it is not unusual for parties to choose not to engage legal practitioners and expert witnesses, and not to call witnesses, in the spirit of reducing expenses.
5. As neither party sought an adjournment, and as each party complained that the other had caused adjournments before, I proceeded with the hearing.

1. The various plumbers' reports have to be read at face value, given the parties' decision not to call their authors as witnesses. None of the reports are in the form required by PNVCAT2 - Expert Evidence. Inevitably, some people express themselves in writing better than others. Some of the reports contain photographs which I will assume have not been altered and speak for themselves. On balance I give each report the weight I consider appropriate, having regard to its age and relevance, and the degree to which the report appears to be logical and based on a plumber's range of expertise. This case is not a murder trial, and there is no jury. Section 98 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic) is not meaningless.
2. The best evidence of there having been a flow of water into 913 is contained in some short videos taken by the applicant on her mobile phone in 2025. These have been placed in the Tribunal's digital file with the following names:

(a) IMG_6990. This is a video of around 20 seconds' duration. Imbedded in it is data that it was filmed at 10:00am on 12 May 2025. The camera has been pointed at the roof of the bathroom in 913 because the ceiling has been removed, and the video shows the bottom of the concrete slab which is the floor of 1013 and the roof of 913. Some of the slab is dry and white, but a few centimetres around a PVC pipe through which water from the shower in 1013 discharges is grey which I am satisfied shows that it is wet. Water is dripping through that grey area of concrete.

(b) d552b55da7344d77af9d6f7df19a7e60. Text is displayed on this video, which is of 7 seconds' duration, saying that it was filmed on 7 July 2025 and that it shows 'continual water ingress from ...1013'. The camera has been pointed up at the same PVC pipe as in IMG_6990, and the video shows water dripping at a rate of more than one drop per second from the bottom of the PVC pipe. I conclude from my close observation of this video that this is not showing a crack in the pipe, but rather is showing water running around the outside of the pipe to the lowest point of the pipe, and then falling off due to the forces of water pressure and gravity.[4]

(c) af58f72b1a454641b1fee2a14c7ef01b. Text is displayed on this video, which is of 7 seconds' duration, saying that it was filmed at 9:15am on 13 July 2025 and that it shows 'yellow dye test by registered plumber'. The camera has been pointed at a shelf - which is shaped like an oval dish - inside 913's shower recess, which holds a bottle of lotion and a cup containing toothbrushes. Sitting at the bottom of this shelf is bright yellow fluid. The camera then pans up to the same PVC pipe which is shown in the two videos above, and the video shows yellow water dripping at a rate of more than one drop per second from the bottom of the pipe onto the shelf.

1. These three videos speak for themselves. Regardless of what plumbers may have written in a report, they show water - including yellow dyed water which had been placed in 1013's shower - dripping into the bathroom of 913 between May and July 2025.
2. I can and do infer that the water began flowing into 913 before 12 May 2025, because that first video shows damp, and I conclude saturated, concrete in the slab. It would have taken more than one day for the concrete to become that damp.
3. Another video, called IMG_5421, of 17 seconds' duration is undated. The camera has been pointed up to the roof of 913's bathroom. The plaster ceiling has already been removed, exposing metal components of the kind which would support a suspended ceiling and PVC drainage pipes. The point sought to be made by the applicant by showing this video is that the lower face of some of the metal components are stained. I conclude that the stains were caused by water. However, the appearance is that water has sat between the bottom face of the metal components and the plasterboard ceiling, creating the stain. In the absence of expert evidence I could not find that the metal components had become 'corroded' to the extent of requiring repair. The video simply shows some cosmetic staining of some metal components which, once the plasterboard ceiling is replaced, would be invisible.
4. Another video, called 9feed9007430340f8ab5c550f45b3e6bb is of 60 seconds' duration. Text is displayed on this video, saying that it was made on 18 September 2025 when Trojan Plumbing was inspecting the shower of 1013. The text says that it shows the absence of a puddle flange and the existence of only a partial waterproof membrane around the edge of the exposed shower base. I know from experience that in some contexts there are standards which dictate how photographs are to be taken to demonstrate building defects. The purpose of these standards is to ensure the photographs are objective and fair. For example I had a case involving a defective floating floor where the homeowner had photographed scratches in extreme closeup. The only way to understand the problems with the floor in that case was to inspect it. The applicant's video 9feed9007430340f8ab5c550f45b3e6bb was not taken with any such standard in mind. Having looked at the video I can confirm that it appears to show that at one edge of the shower base the waterproof membrane does not fully cover the area, suggesting that it is possible that the membrane might not be complete below the shower base. However I do not consider that this video proves anything.

1. As I said above, these reports are not in the form of experts reports and their authors did not give evidence orally.
2. Pro Seal, 7 April 2017. This document is a tax invoice from Pro Seal to Dingle Partners, rental estate agents of the respondent, in relation to a 'standard prosealed epoxy shower service' carried out at 1013. Pro Seal charged for removing the silicon/grout from the shower base, de-grouting the shower base joints and the strip drain floor waste joints, cleaning out all debris, resealing, and resealing the shower screen joints with a polyurethane sealant.
3. J & C Moloney, Plumbers & Gasfitters, 24 April 2017. This document is a letter sent to Dingle Partners, rental estate agents of the respondent. Mr Jason Moloney wrote that it was engaged because 913 had reported water leaking from its bathroom ceiling, directly below the toilet connection of 1013. Mr Moloney set out the tests he performed, and his conclusion that the shower in 1013 was not leaking, but that water was tracking along the external wall's bottom plate, and pooling at the toilet waste floor penetration. He concluded that 1013 was not the origin of the leak and that instead, the leak was originating from an upper floor of the apartment building, with water tracking down the common sewer service duct.
4. Correspondence from April to June 2017, filed with the J & C Moloney report, says that Hickory - the builders of the apartment - eventually accepted responsibility for a defect in the sewer system and carried out repairs.
5. The Leak Detector, undated report referring to an inspection on 1 November 2024. This document is a site inspection form addressed to the manager of Owners Corporation 2 which affects the apartment building. The report deals with the cause of mould buildup on the bathroom ceiling of 913. The author says that by the time he arrived at 913 on 1 November 2024, the bathroom ceiling had been removed. Using a thermal imaging infrared camera, the author noted a moist area directly above the shower where the drainpipe of the shower in 1013 penetrates the concrete slab. One could clearly see a moist patch in that area of the slab. The electronic damp meter showed extremely high levels of dampness. The author understood that the shower in 1013 had recently been re-waterproofed. He concluded that there was still water seeping through the slab into 913, and that it caused the mould buildup. The author concluded that the water seepage was not caused by a leaking water pipe because no continuous flow or drip of water was observed. He or she concluded that the new waterproof membrane which had been installed in 1013 had not been installed correctly.
6. Megasealed 20 January 2025, Quotation number 5590. This is a quote for $1,450.00 sent to Dingle Partners, rental estate agents of the respondent. The scope of work was called a 'Megasealed shower regeneration service' which includes the replacement of perimeter seals and the re-grouting of the floor and the first row of tiles; the injection of a liquid membrane to repair the perimeter of the shower recess floor; and replacing the seal along the inner joints of the water waste channel.
7. Ultimate Work Solutions ('UWS') 3 February 2025. This is a quotation by UWS for reinstatement of the ceiling in the bathroom of 913, painting the ceiling and painting the walls. The amount quoted is $5,175.50. This document was filed by the respondent as an appendix to the Points of Defence. It is accompanied by an email from the applicant to the respondent and Dingle Partners dated 3 February 2025, in which the applicant says the quote is ridiculous. However the meaning of that criticism is unclear.
8. Mould Cleaning Australia, visual inspection report on 913 dated 20 March 2025. On the unnumbered page of this report headed 'Summary', the author writes that mould growth in 913 was caused by a water leak which has since been repaired, and that the residual dampness has created an ideal environment for mould to thrive. Therefore work was required. This would include reducing humidity by the use of fans and by opening windows, and treating relevant services with appropriate chemicals.
9. Titan Plumbing Services, Water Leak Report dated 21 March 2025. Titan wrote that it inspected both 1013 and 913. It inspected the damage in 913, tested the shower in 1013, and conducted a pressure test of the water supply. Titan saw no visible signs of active water leakage in 913 at the time of its inspection. As to 1013, Titan said that the shower area had been resealed and re-grouted and a channel drain installed against the shower wall with an offset in the sewer connection. A flood test was conducted and did not show any leaking into 913. A spray test of the shower in 1013 was conducted and no leaks were detected. A pressure test was conducted and the result was it showed excessive water pressure in 1013. The drain in the shower of 1013 was tested and it 'passed', although precisely what the author meant by this is unclear. Presumably it meant that no leak was detected. The report did not state that any particular work was required.
10. Force Plumbing 13 June 2025, leak investigation. Force Plumbing wrote that it attended 913 on 13 June 2025 and saw clear evidence of a prominent leak affecting its bathroom ceiling. In 1013, the shower base had been restored but only the caulking and grout were addressed. The essential membrane and waterproofing located beneath the tiles had not been properly attended to, which raises significant concern for the integrity of the installation. The fact that dyed water leaked from the shower in 1013 within 3-4 minutes led Force Plumbing to recommend that the existing shower base, including the screed and tiles, along with the wall tiles, be entirely removed; and that a new waterproof membrane be installed within the shower and bathroom area.
11. Megasealed 20 June 2025. This document is an email sent by Ms Monique Hill of Megasealed to Dingle Partners, rental estate agents of the respondent. Megasealed says that it cannot assist further with identifying the root cause of the leak into 913. Megasealed sets out its interpretations of tests conducted by Titan Plumbing Services in March 2025 and Force Plumbing which reported in June 2025 that it had attended after Megasealed's attendance in February 2025.
12. Force Plumbing said that water only entered when the shower in 1013 was being used. Water did not enter under constant mains pressure.
13. Megasealed wrote that all it did in February 2025 was to address the caulking and grout, and that the work was under warranty. The essential membrane and waterproofing located beneath the tiles had not been properly attended to (because Megasealed was not hired to do that work), which raises significant concern for the integrity of the installation. To address the waterproofing the shower tiles would have to be stripped out at a cost of around $8,000.00 - $10,000.00, and then new waterproofing and sewer/flange systems installed.
14. Megasealed's interpretation of the results of Force Plumbing's pressure testing was that it showed that there were no issues with the shower outlet plumbing. However, dye testing showed that within 3 to 4 minutes of dyed water being introduced into the shower of 1013, water permeated below, showing a failure in waterproofing. Megasealed speculated that there may have been movement around the flange system, allowing water to leak into 913, as such movement is a very common issue in a shower constructed using the method that applied to this apartment building.
15. Megasealed's interpretation of Titan Plumbing Services's investigation was that it performed a flood test and a spray test in the shower of 1013, and no leaks were detected in 913.
16. Megasealed concluded that this showed that there were no leaks from the surface area of 1013's shower, which was the area in which Megasealed had carried out its works.
17. Megasealed included a photograph of the offset sewer pipe connection of the shower in 1013 taken from another plumber's report. It described this as a 'detached looking connection', and said that it recommended further testing because 'drains looking like this can have separation issues with the waterproofing and flange, which allows a small percentage of water to track out while the majority tracks down the sewer pipe. As this would be considered a pipe related matter, [Megasealed] could not guarantee there is a surface seal solution without investigating this theory further'.
18. Megasealed 16 July 2025. This document is a quote sent by Mr Oskar Wlodarczyk, Technical Consultant of Megasealed to Dingle Partners, rental estate agents of the respondent. The document begins with an 'inspection report', which unfortunately contains some typographical or grammatical errors which makes it a little less clear than would have been ideal. This inspection report states that the shower of 1013 intermittently leaks within the water waste channel connection to the PVC waste pipe. It cannot be fixed with a surface seal. The wastewater channel will need to be reinstalled correctly, and sealed into place by removing the shower floor tiles, and replacing the first row of wall tiles with new perimeter bonding to be performed in accordance with the Australian Waterproofing Code. The shower was in poor condition to begin with but Megasealed's work has addressed that. However, Megasealed did not work on the drain, or the flange connection to the underside of the strip drain. Megasealed displayed a photograph in the report which it said indicated that the connection point of the underside of the strip drain has an issue.

These drains are cut to size on-site by the tilers and installed as part of tiling works. End stop must be sealed and drain hole location cut to suit the connection point to drain in the building which can vary through these [apartment] complexes. The outlet then installed and sealed to underside of the drain ... set into place to the sewer pipe connection point puddle flange.

1. Megasealed quoted $7,785.00 for its work which included 'new waste channel and screed repair and waterproof and wall service', which it said would take 10-15 working days given that membranes, glue and grouts need to be given time to dry which can be dependent on weather conditions.
2. Seal-A-Gap quote number PP/1013/50/AR dated 20 August 2025. This company gave a quote based on the reports of Force Plumbing and Megasealed. The stated scope of work was to remove the existing shower screen; remove the existing tiles from the shower floor and one row of wall tiles; remove the floor channel; assuming that no structural damage was detected, repair the shower walls and floors and install a new water waste channel; apply two coats of waterproofing with waterproofing bond bandage; screed a new shower base; apply two coats of waterproofing; lay new tiles to the shower floor and wall using an adhesive; apply a proprietary sealant to the perimeter of the shower floor and wall to wall joints where required; apply water resistant grout into the wall and floor joints; re-install the shower screen, and seal. The quoted price was $6,876.00 plus GST, or $9,038.00 including GST for a 'turnkey' project that included the previously described work, with additional cleaning. The respondent gave evidence that he accepted the quote and that Seal-A-Gap completed the works on 15 October 2025 and issued a certificate of compliance with Australian Standard AS3740 - Waterproofing of Domestic Wet Areas.

1. On the basis of the evidence which the parties have chosen to rely upon in this case I conclude that by 1 November 2024 there was a flow of water from 1013 onto 913 which was not reasonable and which caused damage to 913. Thus the respondent was liable to the applicant under section 16(1) of the Water Act 1989 (Vic).
2. Because mould does not develop overnight, and because I conclude that the bathroom ceiling was removed from 913 for genuine reasons, and not to present an exaggerated image of damage to the apartment, I find that the flow of water was taking place from 1 July 2024.
3. I find that Seal-A-Gap repaired the shower in 1013 for the respondent with effect from 15 October 2025, and that there is no evidence of there being a flow of water into 913 since then.
4. Apartment 913 is yet to be repaired. The applicant has deferred repair pending the outcome of this case, because she sought orders which would compel the respondent to repair 1013 in a particular way. The best evidence of the cost of rectification is the quote dated 3 February 2025 from UWS, for $5,175.50. As this quote is almost 1 year old, and because I accept that it was reasonable for the applicant to defer having her bathroom repaired until at least Seal-A-Gap repaired the shower in 1013 in mid October 2025 and that it is likely that UWS would now insist on re-quoting to account for inflation, I conclude that 110% of that quote is the measure of the applicant's damages in respect of repair to 913.[5] The figure is $5,693.05.
5. I reject the respondent's defence that the bathroom ceiling of 913 had been removed. The intended implication seemed to be that the applicant never had a ceiling and so was not entitled to a repair. I find it more likely than not that the ceiling was removed because of the mould damage it sustained as a result of the flow of water from 1013. It is not unsurprising that the applicant placed some cardboard to hide the missing ceiling pending the completion of her VCAT proceeding.
6. I also reject the respondent's defence that the proposed painting of the bathroom wall and door was unrelated to the damage to the bathroom in 913. I am satisfied that the bathroom wall and door need to be painted, as well as the new ceiling. I also reject the respondent's argument that the applicant has not proven a connection between the flow of water from 1013 and the growth of mould in the ceiling of the bathroom in 913. To be frank, I consider that argument to be absurd.
7. The applicant claimed $512.18 for cleaning. The applicant has not produced a quotation or invoice for that sum. I must disallow this claim.
8. The applicant claimed damages for loss of rent. Section 16(1) of the Water Act 1989 (Vic) allows compensation to be awarded for economic loss, but the problem for the applicant in this context is that she never leased out apartment 913. Her evidence was that she lived in 913, apart from a short period in which she moved out, because the growth of mould in the bathroom made it impossible to rent out 913. During that short period she lived with her sister.
9. If the applicant had been leasing out 913, and had lost her tenant because of the mould, it would have been possible to identify the applicant's loss of rent and related losses such as the proportion of an estate agent's letting fee which was wasted in those circumstances. But the fact that the applicant moved in with her sister shows that she has not incurred a loss of rent: she has lived in 913 herself; had she been letting out 913, she would have to have paid for accommodation for herself somewhere else and there is no evidence before the Tribunal that would enable it to calculate the difference between the rent the applicant would have would have received for 913 and the rent she would have paid.
10. Loss of amenity is another matter though. I accept that it was reasonable for the applicant to move out of 913 because of mould, and that in the time she lived in 913 there were significant periods in which her bathroom had no ceiling. Had the applicant leased out 913, her tenant would have been in a strong position to demand a reduction of rent because of the condition of the bathroom. On 8 July 2025 MICM Real Estate gave the applicant a rental appraisal, saying that 913 in good condition may be capable of being rented out for $500.00 per week unfurnished. I find that the condition of the bathroom would entitle a tenant to a reduction of $50.00 per week, for the period 1 July 2024 to 15 October 2025. I find that this $50.00 per week is the measure of part of the applicant's loss of amenity, for her own discomfort and inconvenience when living in 913. In that period of 62 weeks between 1 July 2024 and 15 October 2025 that amounts to $3,100.00. The applicant is also entitled to compensation, as an element of her loss of amenity, for the inconvenience and disappointment caused by the effort to move out of 913 to her sister's dwelling and then to move in again. I assess that aspect of the loss of amenity at $3,000.00.

1. For the reasons stated above, I find that the respondent is liable to pay compensation to the applicant under section 16(1) of the Water Act 1989 (Vic). The respondent has properly repaired the shower in 1013 and so the applicant's claim for orders in the nature of a mandatory injunction to compel the respondent to repair the shower is now redundant. Seal-A-Gap did not repair the shower in 1013 until 15 October 2025, so the applicant was entitled to seek Orders of that kind when she applicant commenced this proceeding during 2024.
2. I find that the respondent must pay damages to the applicant of $5,693.05 as the cost of repairing 913 and $6,100.00 for loss of amenity, a total of $11,793.05.
3. I reserve costs.

[1] A 'puddle flange', formally known as a 'leak control flange', is part of the waterproofing system for showers in buildings. The membrane is a protective layer which lies underneath and behind floor and wall tiles. Silicone and shower screens guide water toward the floor waste. Leak control flanges provide the crucial path for subsurface drainage. They ensure a secure connection between waterproofing membranes and drainage systems. They are required by Australian Standard AS 3740-2021 (Waterproofing of wet areas within residential buildings).

[2] The applicant ... They withdrew on 5 August 2025 Elamine Lawyers.

[3] Examples of how these documents have been 'indexed' in folders include: 'A1 supporting docs'; 'A1 docs for hearing'; 'A1 correspondence... video in support (x2 att - across two emails)'; 'appendix'; 'supporting documents'; 'further supporting documents (x19 att)'; and 'supporting photos to be relied on (x17 att)'.

[4] Another video, called IMG-7182, of 12 seconds duration is undated and seems to just be another view of the same thing. Another video called IMG-7181, again of 12 seconds and dated 28 May 2025, shows the same PVC pipe, dripping water. Two other videos called IMG-7220 and IMG_7228, of 12 seconds and 8 seconds respectively, both dated 21 May 2025, shows the same PVC pipe but the picture quality is insufficient to show whether or not water is dripping from the pipe.

[5] The applicant had said in an email that 'Annexure J' was a quote for $7,500.00. There is no Annexure J. The Tribunal's registry had written to the applicant in relation to the need for the applicant to file relevant documents, and the Tribunal had made directions under section 80 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic) requiring the discovery of documents. The UWS quote is the best evidence of the cost of repairing 913.