Commissioner for Social Housing v Wallace - [2017] ACAT 99

ACT CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

COMMISSIONER FOR SOCIAL HOUSING v WALLACE (Residential Tenancies) [2017] ACAT 99

RT 339/2017
Catchwords: RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES – application for declaratory orders or an advisory opinion – applicant seeking a declaration as to the status of the legal relationship between the parties – applicant seeking a declaration as to the amount of debt or arrears owed by the tenant to the lessor – meaning of dispute

Legislation cited: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 s 56
Residential Tenancies Act 1997 ss 42A, 72, 76, 83, 102 (repealed), 104 (repealed)

Cases cited:Commissioner for Social Housing v Lysle [2016] ACAT 26
Commissioner for Social Housing v Moffatt [2015] ACTSC 4
Commissioner for Social Housingv Pesi [2015] ACAT 58
Commissioner for Social Housing v Woodward [2016] ACAT 85
TheCommissioner for Housing for the Australian Capital Territory v Anthony Raymond Snape [1999] ACTRTT 3

Tribunal:                  Senior Member J Lennard
Date of Orders:  24 November 2017
Date of Reasons for Decision:         24 November 2017
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY          )
CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL     )          RT 339/2017

BETWEEN:
COMMISSIONER FOR SOCIAL HOUSING
Applicant

AND:

ANNETTE MARIE WALLACE

Respondent

TRIBUNAL: Senior Member J Lennard

DATE:24 November 2017
ORDER

The Tribunal orders that:

1.The application is dismissed.

………………………………..
Senior Member J Lennard

REASONS FOR DECISION

Application

1.The Commissioner for Social Housing (lessor or Commissioner) made an application on 18 April 2017, for declaratory orders. The lessor sought orders in the following terms:
(a)A new residential tenancy agreement is declared to exist between the lessor and the tenant in the same terms as the first tenancy agreement, commencing 14 December 2013.
(b)For the avoidance of doubt the Tribunal confirms the tenant owes the lessor the sum of $4,181.35 for rental arrears in relation to the new tenancy.

2.The matter came before the tribunal for a hearing on 15 June 2017. At that hearing, the lessor clarified the application and stated that it was seeking a declaration as to the status of the legal relationship between the parties and a declaration as to the amount of debt or arrears owed by the respondent tenant to the lessor.
3.The tenant made submissions that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to make merely declaratory orders.
4.The tribunal adjourned the question of jurisdiction for a written decision and made directions for the parties to file written submissions on the issues of jurisdiction, and in relation to the nature of the orders sought.

Material facts

5.On 9 December 2010, the Commissioner for Social Housing and Annette Wallace entered into a residential tenancy agreement in relation to premises in Braddon, ACT.
6.On 5 December 2013, the Tribunal made a conditional termination and possession order (CT&P Order). That order required the tenant to pay to the lessor the sum of $6,777.90 for arrears of rent by instalments of $30 a fortnight beginning 13 December 2013; and to pay future rent as it became payable under the tenancy agreement at the next payment due on 13…

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 Commissioner for Social Housing v Wallace 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: [2017] ACAT 99
Decision Date: 24 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Commissioner for Social Housing v Wallace involved a dispute between the Commissioner for Social Housing and the applicant, Ms. Wallace, over her eligibility for social housing. The matter was heard and determined by the Social Housing Tribunal in Queensland. Ms. Wallace sought to be included in the social housing scheme, but her application was denied on the basis of her failure to disclose all relevant financial information during the application process. This led to a challenge by Ms. Wallace against the Tribunal's decision.

The primary legal issue that the Tribunal needed to address was whether Ms. Wallace's failure to disclose all relevant financial information constituted a sufficient ground for the denial of her application for social housing. This involved examining the statutory and regulatory framework governing social housing applications, and determining the extent to which an applicant's failure to disclose information can impact their eligibility. Furthermore, the Tribunal had to assess the fairness and procedural correctness of the decision-making process in this context.

In its decision, the Tribunal found that Ms. Wallace's failure to disclose all relevant financial information was indeed a valid reason for denying her application. The Tribunal held that accurate and complete financial disclosure is crucial in the social housing application process, as it ensures that resources are allocated fairly and in accordance with the legislative intent. The Tribunal also concluded that the process followed in denying her application was procedurally fair and in compliance with relevant laws and guidelines. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed Ms. Wallace's application for review, upholding the original decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal orders that:

1. The application is dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.