Maytom v Laundy [2024] NSWSC 817

Maytom v Laundy [2024] NSWSC 817

No urgent interim order was made because the plaintiffs had not shown a sufficient prima facie case: there was no clear material that Arthur Laundy and Stuart Laundy were the proper defendants, the accommodation was not regulated by the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) or the Boarding Houses Act 2012 (NSW) and the arrangement appeared to require no notice to vacate, and the power to make an interim order under s 105 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) is given to NCAT rather than the Supreme Court when the statutory conditions are satisfied.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application for Interim Order to Stay a Notice to Vacate / Ex Tempore Procedural Ruling in Equity Duty List
Outcome
No interim order made. Leave granted to file summons and affidavit in Court and orders made for short service.
Legal Topics
['week to Week Tenancy' 'hotel Accommodation' 'anti Discrimination Act 1977 (nsw) S 105 Interim Orders' 'age and Disability Discrimination' 'appropriate Defendants' 'short Service']
['leases and Tenancies' 'human Rights' 'civil Procedure'] ['week to Week Tenancy' 'hotel Accommodation' 'anti Discrimination Act 1977 (nsw) S 105 Interim Orders' 'age and Disability Discrimination' 'appropriate Defendants' 'short Service']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application for Interim Order to Stay a Notice to Vacate / Ex Tempore Procedural Ruling in Equity Duty List

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Supreme Court should make an urgent interim order restraining enforcement of a notice to vacate a studio apartment in hotel accommodation.' 'Whether the Supreme Court has power to make an interim order under s 105 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW).' "Whether the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) or Boarding Houses Act 2012 (NSW) applied to the plaintiffs' occupation of the hotel accommodation." 'Whether Arthur Laundy and Stuart Laundy were shown to be the appropriate defendants to the claim.']

Ratio Decidendi

No urgent interim order was made because the plaintiffs had not shown a sufficient prima facie case: there was no clear material that Arthur Laundy and Stuart Laundy were the proper defendants, the accommodation was not regulated by the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) or the Boarding Houses Act 2012 (NSW) and the arrangement appeared to require no notice to vacate, and the power to make an interim order under s 105 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) is given to NCAT rather than the Supreme Court when the statutory conditions are satisfied.

Court Disposition

No interim order made. Leave granted to file summons and affidavit in Court and orders made for short service.

Orders

  • ['Upon Rachel Taylor Maytom, as first plaintiff, undertaking to pay the applicable filing fee, unless she is able to obtain from the Court a permission or order remitting the payment of the fee, grants leave to the plaintiffs to file in Court in the form initialled by Meek J, dated and placed with the papers: the...