Shoena Middlebrook v NSW Land & Housing Corporation & Anor [2005] NSWSC 673
The Tribunal failed to make all findings required under s64 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1987 and incorrectly approached the question of special circumstances and the onus; therefore the Tribunal's orders must be set aside.
Source-derived case information.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 13 July 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Tribunal Decision
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; Tribunal orders set aside; matter remitted for re-hearing.
- Legal Topics
- ['termination of Residential Tenancy Agreement' 'tribunal Jurisdiction' 'procedural Fairness' 'threshold Requirements']
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Tribunal Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the Tribunal failed to make requisite findings as required by s64 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1987' "Whether Tribunal properly addressed 'special circumstances' and the onus in applications for termination of tenancy agreements" "Whether procedural fairness and threshold statutory requirements were observed in Tribunal's orders"]
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal failed to make all findings required under s64 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1987 and incorrectly approached the question of special circumstances and the onus; therefore the Tribunal's orders must be set aside.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; Tribunal orders set aside; matter remitted for re-hearing.
Orders
- ['Orders made by Tribunal on 9 February 2005 are set aside.' 'The decision is remitted to the Tribunal.' 'A re-hearing of the proceedings by the Tribunal is ordered.' 'First defendant to pay costs of the summons.' 'Exhibits may be returned.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment