Legal Research
Cases
Commissioner for Social Housing v Williams

Commissioner for Social Housing v Williams

Link copied

Case Copied 26 July 2017 26 min read

Contents

On this page

ACT CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

COMMISSIONER FOR SOCIAL HOUSING v WILLIAMS (Appeal) [2017] ACAT 53

AA 24/2017
Catchwords: APPEAL – application for leave to appeal out of time – principles to be considered – prima facie time limits must be obeyed – length of delay – reasons for delay – merits of proposed appeal – prejudice to respondent – requirements of justice

Legislation cited: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 ss 6, 7, 81
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) s 41
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 37M
Residential Tenancies Act 1997 s 47

Subordinate
Legislation cited: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Procedural Rules (No 2) r 14

Cases cited:Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27
Concerned Citizens of Canberra Inc v Chief Executive (Planning and Land Authority) [2015] ACTCA 56
Commissioner for Social Housing v “A” [2015] ACAT 13
Denton v TH White; Decadent Vapours Ltd v Bevan; Utilise TDS Ltd v Davise [2015] 1 All ER 880
Eastman v Commissioner for Social Housing [2006] ACTSC 52
Gallo v Dawson [1990] HCA 30
Giusida Pty Limited v Commissioner for Revenue [2016] ACTSC 275
Hussain & Bilkis v Rahman [2016] ACAT 145
Jackson v NSW Land and Housing Corporation [2014] NSWCATAP 22
Krown Living Pty Ltd v Lando [2016] ACAT 149

Legal Practitioner v Law Society of the ACT [2016] ACTSC 203
Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Limited [2013] EWCA Civ 1537
Superal-Wallace v Indypendent Pty Ltd & Anor [2016] ACAT 144

Urbaniak-Bak v Council of the Law Society of the ACT & “RA” [2016] ACAT 156
Williams v Commissioner for Social Housing [2016] ACAT 93

List of
Texts/Papers cited: Matthew Finn, ‘Denton: Mitchell clarified and amplified’, Construction Blog, Thomson Reuters, July 8 2014

Tribunal:                   President G Neate AM
Date of Orders:  26 July 2017
Date of Reasons for Decision:         26 July 2017
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL       )          AA 24/2017

BETWEEN:
COMMISSIONER FOR SOCIAL HOUSING
Applicant

AND:
AYSHIA WILLIAMS
Respondent

TRIBUNAL: President G Neate AM

DATE:26 July 2017
ORDER

The Tribunal orders that:

1.The application for leave to appeal out of time be dismissed.

………………………………..
President G Neate AM

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

1.On 25 May 2017, a Presidential Member of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) dismissed an application by the Commissioner for Social Housing (the Commissioner) under section 47 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 for a termination and possession order in relation to premises occupied by Ms Williams.
2.On 4 July 2017, the Commissioner lodged with the Tribunal an application for appeal against that decision. Because the lodgement occurred after the end of the prescribed period for lodging appeals, the Commissioner sought leave to appeal out of time, and included a statement in accordance with Rule 14 of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2009 (No 2) (ACAT Rules).
3.Ms Williams opposes the grant of leave to the Commissioner to appeal…

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 Williams 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 53
Decision Date: 26 July 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the Commissioner for Social Housing, acting on behalf of the State, sought to enforce a decision against Ms. Williams, a recipient of social housing, regarding the termination of her tenancy. The dispute centred on whether the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to entertain an appeal that was filed beyond the statutory time limit. The matter was heard and determined by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the statutory time limit for filing an appeal was mandatory and jurisdictional, thereby precluding the Tribunal from hearing an out-of-time appeal. The Tribunal needed to interpret the relevant statutory provisions and consider whether there were any circumstances that justified the late filing of the appeal. Additionally, the Tribunal had to assess whether the delay in filing the appeal had caused any prejudice to the opposing party, in this case, the Commissioner for Social Housing.

The Tribunal found that the statutory time limit was indeed mandatory and jurisdictional, meaning that the Tribunal was precluded from hearing an out-of-time appeal. The Tribunal emphasised the importance of strict adherence to statutory time limits in administrative law to ensure certainty and fairness. The Tribunal also concluded that the delay in filing the appeal had caused significant prejudice to the Commissioner for Social Housing, as it had disrupted the Tribunal’s case management processes and potentially prejudiced the Commissioner’s ability to prepare a proper defence. Based on these findings, the Tribunal dismissed the application for leave to appeal out of time.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal orders that:

1. The application for leave to appeal out of time be 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.