Howard v B. Miles Womens Foundation Inc [2012] NSWSC 1173

Howard v B. Miles Womens Foundation Inc [2012] NSWSC 1173

Ms Howard failed to establish a prima facie case that the Tribunal erred in its interpretation of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010, particularly regarding the interaction between ss 84 and 115. The evidence did not show that the mandatory terms of s 84 were subject to the discretion in s 115, nor that Ms Howard presented submissions or evidence which could support a finding of retaliatory conduct. As such, the interlocutory relief was refused.

Parties
Plaintiff: Kellie Anne Howard; First Defendant: B. Miles Womens Foundation Inc; Second Defendant: Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal of New South Wales; Third Defendant: Registrar of the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal of New South Wales
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 September 2012
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Determination of Interlocutory Relief
Outcome
interlocutory relief refused
Legal Topics
Review of Tribunal Decision, Statutory Interpretation, Interlocutory Orders, Balance of Convenience
Administrative Law Review of Tribunal Decision Statutory Interpretation Interlocutory Orders Balance of Convenience

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kellie Anne Howard

Plaintiff

B. Miles Womens Foundation Inc

First Defendant

Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal of New South Wales

Second Defendant

Registrar of the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal of New South Wales

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Determination of Interlocutory Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a prima facie case has been established for interlocutory relief
  2. 2 Proper construction and interaction between s 84 and s 115 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal committed jurisdictional error in its interpretation of the Act

Ratio Decidendi

Ms Howard failed to establish a prima facie case that the Tribunal erred in its interpretation of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010, particularly regarding the interaction between ss 84 and 115. The evidence did not show that the mandatory terms of s 84 were subject to the discretion in s 115, nor that Ms Howard presented submissions or evidence which could support a finding of retaliatory conduct. As such, the interlocutory relief was refused.

Court Disposition

interlocutory relief refused

Orders

  • Interlocutory relief sought by Ms Howard be refused.