Commissioner for Fair Trading v Voulon

The case of Commissioner for Fair Trading v Voulon involved the Commissioner for Fair Trading seeking an interlocutory injunction against Voulon, who was allegedly involved in misrepresenting the status of occupants of residential premises. The dispute centred around whether the occupants were tenants or lodgers, and the implications of this classification under the Residential Tenancies Act 1987 (WA). The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The court was required to decide whether the occupants of the premises were tenants under the Act, and thus entitled to the protections afforded by it, or whether they were lodgers, which would place them outside the scope of the Act.

The legal issues at the heart of the case involved interpreting the Residential Tenancies Act 1987 (WA) and determining the precise meaning of a residential tenancy agreement. The court had to consider the factual circumstances surrounding the occupancy of the premises and the nature of the relationship between Voulon and the occupants. The Commissioner argued that Voulon had misrepresented the status of the occupants to avoid the protections of the Act, while Voulon contended that the occupants were indeed lodgers. The court had to assess whether there was a serious question to be tried regarding the classification of the occupants and whether the balance of convenience favoured the grant of an interlocutory injunction.

In delivering its judgment, the court examined the statutory provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1987 (WA) and the case law on the distinction between tenants and lodgers. It found that there was a serious question to be tried regarding the nature of the occupancy arrangements. The court considered the evidence presented and determined that the balance of convenience favoured the grant of the injunction. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to grant the interlocutory injunction, pending the resolution of the underlying dispute. The court ordered that Voulon was to be restrained from continuing the alleged misrepresentations concerning the residential premises.