16 May 1989
The Tribunal misdirected itself by reverting to a greater‑hardship/balancing test and failing to give adequate weight to the applicants' ownership rights and needs; properly applied, the high onus on the tenant was not discharged and the appeal is allowed with an order for possession.
14 May 1982
The tenant must first prove any primary facts relied upon on the balance of probabilities and then satisfy a distinct, heavier qualitative test that an ordinary person apprised of all circumstances would regard making an order for possession as clearly, cogent and impellingly unjust; the trial judge erred by treating irrelevant landlord factors and lack of frankness as part of that ultimate test, and on the correct application the appeal is allowed and possession granted to the landlord.
10 Nov 1980
Plaintiff proved reasonable requirement for occupation, but defendants discharged the shifted onus by proving on the balance of probabilities that, given the number of occupants, lack of alternative accommodation, relative financial positions and family circumstances, it would be thoroughly unjust to order possession; therefore claim dismissed.
8 Aug 1980
The landlord proved on the balance of probabilities that she reasonably required the disputed premises for her own occupation; the tenant failed to establish that, in all the circumstances, it would manifestly not be just and equitable to grant possession. Therefore the court must grant the possession order. The tenant bears a heavy burden under the proviso; 'manifestly' requires clear and cogent proof of injustice outweighing the landlord's reasonable need, although hardship is a relevant factor among all circumstances to be considered.
20 Jun 1980
The court found the landlord acted bona fide and proved a reasonable requirement for possession (to house his father and family); the defendant failed to show that making an order would 'manifestly not be just and equitable'; accordingly judgment for the plaintiff and an order for possession was granted.