Chen v United Arab Emirates (Residential Tenancies)

The case of Chen v United Arab Emirates (Residential Tenancies) involves Qian Chen and Yinglie Yang, referred to as the "lessor" in the agreement, and the United Arab Emirates, referred to as the "tenant." The dispute centres on the release of bond moneys paid to the Territory following the termination of an agreement dated 3 July 2020. The Australian Capital Territory Rental Bonds (ACT Rental Bonds) referred the dispute to the tribunal under section 35(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1998. The central legal issues were whether the tribunal has jurisdiction over the dispute, whether the United Arab Emirates can be considered a tenant under the Act, and whether the agreement qualifies as a residential tenancy agreement.

The tribunal found that the agreement was indeed made between the applicants and the United Arab Emirates, a foreign State, as defined in the Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 (Cth). Furthermore, the tribunal determined that the agreement does not constitute a "residential tenancy agreement" as defined in section 6A(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997. Consequently, the notice of the dispute about the release of bond moneys is not a "tenancy dispute" within the meaning of Part 6 of the Act. As a result, the tribunal concluded that it lacks jurisdiction to hear and decide the matter under section 76 of the Act. The application was dismissed, and the tribunal requested the Registrar to refund the filing fee paid by the applicant. The tribunal will provide written reasons for its decision at a later date.

The implications of the Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 (Cth) were considered in the context of this decision. The tribunal's ruling underscores the complexities in applying domestic tenancy laws to agreements involving foreign states. The tribunal found that the agreement did not meet the criteria for a residential tenancy agreement, further complicating jurisdictional questions. The dismissal of the application highlights the need for careful consideration of jurisdictional boundaries when dealing with international agreements and the potential availability of alternative remedies, such as damages for breach of contract, subject to the immunities granted by the Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 (Cth).