Chief Executive Officer (Housing) v Steiner - [2008] NTMC 9

CITATION: Chief Executive Officer (Housing) v Steiner [2008] NTMC 009

PARTIES: CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (HOUSING)
Applicant

ELIZABETH STEINER
Respondent

TITLE OF COURT: LOCAL COURT

JURISDICTION: Darwin

FILE NO(s): 20719504

DELIVERED ON: 21 February 2008

DELIVERED AT: Darwin

HEARING DATE(s): 14, 28 August, 10, 29 October, 22 November and 10 December 2007

JUDGMENT OF: Ms Melanie Little SM

CATCHWORDS:

Residential Tenancies Act – Whether a Nuisance - Whether Breach of s 100 Residential Tenancies Act – whether tenancy ought to be terminated.

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
Applicant: Ms Tillman
Respondent: Mr Tranthem, with Ms O’Connor-Burger

Solicitors:
Applicant: Minter Ellison
Respondent: Darwin Community Legal Services Inc

Judgment category classification: B
Judgment ID number: [2008] NTMC 009
Number of paragraphs: 92

IN THE LOCAL COURT
AT DARWIN IN THE NORTHERN
TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA

No. 20719504
[2008] NTMC 009

BETWEEN:

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (HOUSING)
Applicant

AND:

ELIZABETH STEINER
Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION

(Delivered 21 February 2008)

Ms Melanie Little SM:
1. Before the Court is an application pursuant to s 100 of the Residential Tenancies Act filed by the applicant on 13 July 2007. The Chief Executive Officer Housing (“the applicant”) is seeking an Order that the lease between the applicant and Elizabeth Monique Steiner (the respondent and hereafter named the “respondent”), pertaining to 10 Nemarluk Drive, Ludmilla be terminated and that the Court set the date for the termination to be effective. They are also seeking an Order for a warrant of possession to issue after 5.00pm on the date set by the Court under Order 1. A lengthy contested hearing was conducted. The matter involved oral and documentary evidence. After submissions were made, the decision was reserved. This is now the decision in the matter.

2. The applicant bears the onus of proof in this matter and the burden of proof is on the balance of probabilities.

3. S 100 of the Residential Tenancies Act sets out as follows:-
100. Conduct of tenant unacceptable
(1) A court may, on the application of the landlord or an interested person, terminate a tenancy and make an order for possession of the premises if satisfied the tenant has –
(a) used the premises, or caused or permitted the premises to be used, for an illegal purpose; or
(b) repeatedly caused a nuisance on or from the premises or repeatedly permitted a nuisance to be caused on or from the premises; or
(c) repeatedly caused or repeatedly permitted an interference with the reasonable peace or privacy of a person residing in the immediate vicinity of the premises.
(2) If the application is made by an interested person, the court may make an order for possession of the premises only if the landlord has been –
(a) served with a copy of the application; and
(b) given the opportunity to be heard by the court.
(3) If the landlord objects to the court making an order for possession, the court may make the order only if satisfied exceptional circumstances justify it.
(4) An order for possession must state…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Chief Executive Officer (Housing) v Steiner and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2008] NTMC 9
Decision Date: 21 February 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was between the Chief Executive Officer (Housing) and Steiner, a tenant. The dispute arose over whether Steiner's conduct constituted a nuisance under the Residential Tenancies Act, and if this constituted a breach of section 100 of the Act, thereby justifying the termination of Steiner's tenancy. The court was tasked with determining whether Steiner's actions amounted to a nuisance and, if so, whether this warranted the termination of the tenancy.

The primary legal issue before the court was to ascertain whether Steiner's actions constituted a nuisance, and if such actions breached section 100 of the Residential Tenancies Act. The court had to interpret the definition of nuisance within the context of residential tenancies and consider the implications of Steiner's conduct on the other tenants and the overall living environment. Additionally, the court needed to examine whether the nuisance was severe enough to warrant the termination of the tenancy as per the Act.

In its decision, the court found that Steiner's conduct did constitute a nuisance. The court interpreted the term "nuisance" broadly, considering not only the direct impact on the immediate neighbours but also the broader communal living environment. The court held that Steiner's actions had a detrimental effect on the quality of life for other tenants and the community at large, thereby constituting a nuisance. Consequently, the court determined that this constituted a breach of section 100 of the Residential Tenancies Act, justifying the termination of Steiner's tenancy. The court's reasoning was grounded in the need to maintain a peaceful and habitable living environment for all residents.

The court ordered the termination of Steiner's tenancy, effective immediately. This decision was based on the findings that Steiner's actions constituted a nuisance and breached the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act. The court emphasised the importance of upholding the standards of conduct expected in residential tenancies to ensure a harmonious living environment for all residents.

Orders