No one likes being subjected to a cold shower in the morning.

But after getting one almost every day for months, a man grew suspicious that it wasn’t just a case of bad luck or being the last out of bed that resulted in him missing out on one of life’s simple pleasures.

So, he set up a camera and caught one of his flatmates turning the gas heater off in the back garden every time he got in the shower.

The situation riled him up so much he took the matter to the Disputes Tribunal, which hears small claims up to $30,000.

The man, who isn’t named in the tribunal’s decision, sued his flatmate for the $3500 in rent he paid in the four months living at the flat and a further $1500 from the stress he was caused.

He told the tribunal he didn’t get on with his flatmate and they would often have arguments.

After these arguments, the man said every time he went to have a shower in the morning, it would be cold and he ended up getting sick.

His suspicions that this might not be a coincidence were raised when the other two flatmates said they never had an issue and would always get a hot shower.

So, the man set up a camera that recorded the suspected flatmate turning off the gas heater. The man also claimed his flatmate would intentionally take a long time in the bathroom to make him late for work.

Tribunal referee Andrew Hayes said that a flat-sharing agreement was essentially a contract and that everyone living there could expect to use the facilities.

However, he said claims like this were hard to address for several reasons.

“First, the loss is of a subjective nature and the extent of intangible harm is difficult to prove and to price,” he said.

Secondly, he said that any contract often gives rise to stress, especially where social or family interests are concerned - like in a house-sharing situation.

“Assessment of the loss in a case like this is not an exact science.

“It is difficult to attribute a value to the loss of some hot showers and some use of the bathroom.”

Hayes said he could make no award for general damages and instead awarded that the flatmate pay the man $300 for the loss of using some of the benefits of the flat.

“… there is always a risk that interpersonal relationship(s) between flatmates may be less than good or bad.

“That is a risk each flatmate takes on and bears themselves when entering into such an arrangement. The available remedy is that the flatmate may give any required notice and move out.”

The flatmate in hot water didn’t engage with the tribunal and did not attend the hearing.

- Jeremy Wilkinson, Open Justice