Event and Time
Event Description
Raissa Nemirovskaya ('the applicant') sought leave to appeal the decision from the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal ('Tribunal') regarding her claim for water damage to her unit (Unit 8) caused allegedly by water leaking from the balcony of the above unit (Unit 9), owned by Stella Briggs ('the respondent').
Application and Claims
- The applicant claimed that the water damage resulted from a lack of waterproofing on the exterior balcony of Unit 9.
- The respondent contended that the cause of the damage was due to extension works undertaken by the applicant in her own unit, not the balcony.
Judicial Decisions
The Tribunal found that:
- The significant damage to Unit 8 was caused by the extension works performed by the applicant.
- A smaller amount of damage in the entry porch area was caused by a lack of maintenance on the respondent's part regarding the balcony.
Dispute Points and Legal Basis
Dispute Points
Applicant's Claims:
- Water damage in ceiling area was the result of the respondent's unmaintained balcony waterproofing.
- The Tribunal's award for damages was misconceived and did not reflect the total cost of reparatory works.
Respondent's Claims:
- Denied liability for the major damage and maintained it was caused by the applicant’s extension works.
- Argued that the Tribunal's compensation calculations were justified based on the available evidence.
Evidence Presented:
- Expert testimonies from Ian Fleming (applicant's builder/engineer) and Roy Spencer (respondent's architect), both discussing the cause and extent of the damage.