Rental damage law change needed

this is a ridiculous decision. The tenant broke the terms of the agreement and damage directly resulted from this. I wonder at the instructions and training adjudicators are getting that they seem oblivious to correct applying both the law and commonsense. I had a similar but very minor decision go against me when clearly again the adjudicator was incorrect in the ruling. I think we as landlords and as tax and rate payers and as responsible citizens need to know the training and directives given to adjudicators (particularly in the light of the perverse outcomes experienced).

Has anyone considered contacting this guy and crowd funding his appeal as its in all our interest to get this corrected promptly ? we could all chip in $10 or so . personally I'm sick of all the stupid decisions made in our justice/adjudicatory system.

Whether something is deliberate is surely a judgement about the person's intentions. I don’t see how a tenant’s intentions should be evaluated differently to anybody else’s. Case law has given some clear guidance on how to judge someone’s intention in the absence of an admission. In Lloyds Bank Ltd v Marcan and others [1973] 2 All ER 359 the Court confirmed, at pages 367-8, the following principles: (i) A person’s intention is a question of fact; (ii) Actual intention may be proved by direct evidence of a person’s state of mind (e.g. an admission), or be inferred from surrounding circumstances and conduct of the person; (iii) To this end, intent may be imputed on the basis that a person must be presumed to intend the natural consequences of his/her own acts although such a presumption may be rebutted by other evidence. Therefore, with respect to damage caused by the negligence or recklessness of tenants, absent any other evidence to rebut it, it must be presumed that tenants intend the natural consequences of their acts. If a tenant’s act was to leave animal urine on the carpet the natural consequence of not cleaning it up properly is damage to the carpet. Therefore one must presume that the tenant intended to damage the carpet - unless they can produce other evidence that rebuts that presumption. That's not impossible - such evidence might be, for example, that they were in hospital and didn’t even know about the urine. Or, somewhat outlandishly, that they had read a research paper (which they can cite and produce) that “proved” that urine is beneficial to carpet and that was their honestly-held belief at the time they left the urine in the carpet. Has this argument been explored in this case and, if it has, what was the rebuttal provided by the tenant and/or alternative reasoning offered by the Court regarding why the above wouldn't apply in this case to determine whether damage to the carpet was intentional (that is, deliberate). If any of you are lawyers and know the answer to this, please let us all know? And if it wasn't explored at Court, but you think perhaps it should have been, perhaps we should let Mr David Russ know... Thanks and kind regards, Megan Mills

Whether something is deliberate is surely a judgement about the person's intentions. I don’t see how a tenant’s intentions should be evaluated differently to anybody else’s. Case law has given some clear guidance on how to judge someone’s intention in the absence of an admission. In Lloyds Bank Ltd v Marcan and others [1973] 2 All ER 359 the Court confirmed, at pages 367-8, the following principles: (i) A person’s intention is a question of fact; (ii) Actual intention may be proved by direct evidence of a person’s state of mind (e.g. an admission), or be inferred from surrounding circumstances and conduct of the person; (iii) To this end, intent may be imputed on the basis that a person must be presumed to intend the natural consequences of his/her own acts although such a presumption may be rebutted by other evidence. Therefore, with respect to damage caused by the negligence or recklessness of tenants, absent any other evidence to rebut it, it must be presumed that tenants intend the natural consequences of their acts. If a tenant’s act was to leave animal urine on the carpet the natural consequence of not cleaning it up properly is damage to the carpet. Therefore one must presume that the tenant intended to damage the carpet - unless they can produce other evidence that rebuts that presumption. That's not impossible - such evidence might be, for example, that they were in hospital and didn’t even know about the urine. Or, somewhat outlandishly, that they had read a research paper (which they can cite and produce) that “proved” that urine is beneficial to carpet and that was their honestly-held belief at the time they left the urine in the carpet. Has this argument been explored in this case and, if it has, what was the rebuttal provided by the tenant and/or alternative reasoning offered by the Court regarding why the above wouldn't apply in this case to determine whether damage to the carpet was intentional (that is, deliberate). If any of you are lawyers and know the answer to this, please let us all know? And if it wasn't explored at Court, but you think perhaps it should have been, perhaps we should let Mr David Russ know... Thanks and kind regards, Megan Mills (If you get this twice, apologies. I tried to refresh the page after submitting it a while ago with what I thought was no problem and it said "Sorry, there was a problem submitting your request". If this is a double-up, please ignore it? Thank you.)

Yes I will contribute towards a crowd funded appeal if someone sets one up.