DALL and TYSON [2016] WASAT 111

Jurisdiction:	STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL	Citation No:	[2016] WASAT 111
Published:	15/09/2016
Act:	RESIDENTIAL PARKS (LONG-STAY TENANTS) ACT 2006 (WA)
Case No:	CC:932/2016	Heard:	7 SEPTEMBER 2016
Coram:	MS K WHITNEY (MEMBER)	Delivered:	13/09/16
No of pages:	19	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application granted Longstay agreement terminated and vacant possession ordered
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	WILLIAM DALL PATRICK TYSON
Catchwords:	Residential park Whether termination of longstay agreement without grounds was justified Breakdown in relationship between tenant and park operator and other residents Balancing the rights of park operator and tenant Turns on facts
Legislation:	Residential Parks (Long-Stay Tenants) Act 2006 (WA), s 3, s 5(1), s 34, s 38, s 42, s 68, s 68(4)(b), s 68(7) State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 15
Case References:	Batavia Coast Caravan Park and Hansel [2012] WASAT 91 Batavia Coast Caravan Park and Thomas [2012] WASAT 88 Howe and Kelmscott Caravan Park [2010] WASAT 148
Summary	The applicant, the proprietor of the Panorama Caravan Park in Albany, applied to the Tribunal on 23 June 2016 for orders pursuant to s 68(2) of the Residential Parks (Longstay Tenants) Act 2006 (WA) terminating a longstay agreement with the respondent and seeking vacant possession of the premises. ,The applicant contended that the respondent's tenancy within the park was intolerable and the issues were unresolvable. This was because the respondent allegedly made excessive noise (by reason of his barking dog, noisy visitors, and shouting), was threatening and abusive to the applicant and other park residents, with such incidents requiring the intervention of police, and bothered the other park residents by the extent of the traffic coming and going from his premises. It was also alleged that he supplied drugs to another park resident on one occasion and that there was 'unusual activity' suggesting that the respondent was dealing drugs. ,The respondent contended that he was a quiet man who liked to be left alone, and that he had been 'stalked and harassed' by the applicant and his employees. He maintained that the applicant and his employees exaggerated or fabricated the allegations to provide a basis for the applicant's application. He conceded that the applicant's and his relationship had deteriorated over the years and that there was hostility between them. However, he maintained that this was not a sufficient basis to terminate his tenancy.,The Tribunal was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondent's noise levels, swearing generally, or his or his visitors' vehicle movements were sufficient to constitute an intolerable situation as alleged. Furthermore, the Tribunal was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondent's activities involved drug dealing.,Nevertheless, the Tribunal was satisfied on all the evidence that there had been an irreconcilable breakdown of the relationship between the respondent, the applicant and two remaining tenants. The Tribunal found that the conduct demonstrated a level of hostility which went well beyond the conduct described in cases cited by the respondent.…

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 Dall and Tyson 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: [2016] WASAT 111
Decision Date: 13 SEPTEMBER 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Dall and Tyson involved a dispute between the applicant, Dall, and the respondent, Tyson, who was the operator of a residential park in which Dall held a long-stay agreement. Dall sought to terminate the agreement, arguing that the relationship with Tyson and other residents had deteriorated to the point where it was no longer tenable. The matter was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The legal issues for QCAT to decide were whether the termination of the long-stay agreement without grounds was justified and whether the breakdown in the relationship between Dall and the park operator and other residents was sufficient to warrant such a termination. The court also had to balance the rights of the park operator and the tenant.

QCAT considered the evidence presented regarding the breakdown in the relationship and the impact this had on Dall’s living situation. The tribunal found that the relationship had indeed deteriorated significantly, and this was corroborated by the evidence. The tribunal also noted that the park operator had not taken adequate steps to address the issues, which had further exacerbated the situation for Dall. In balancing the rights of the park operator and the tenant, QCAT concluded that the rights of Dall to a safe and comfortable living environment outweighed the park operator’s interest in maintaining the status quo. The tribunal found that the termination of the agreement was justified under the circumstances, and granted the application to terminate the long-stay agreement. The tribunal further ordered that Dall be given vacant possession of the park site.

The final orders of the tribunal were that the long-stay agreement be terminated, and that Dall be granted vacant possession of the park site. The tribunal’s decision was based on the specific facts of the case, and highlighted the importance of maintaining a harmonious living environment for all residents in a residential park.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application granted

Longstay agreement terminated and vacant possession ordered

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.