David Harold Eastman v Commissioner for Social Housing

[2011] HCASL 154

DAVID HAROLD EASTMAN
v
COMMISSIONER FOR SOCIAL HOUSING
[2011] HCASL 154
C4/2011

1. The applicant seeks special leave to appeal against orders of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory (Gray P, Penfold and Katzmann JJ) dismissing (with costs) his appeal against the orders of a single judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory (Lander J).  By his orders, Lander J dismissed (with costs) an appeal against the orders of a Master of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory (Master Harper) refusing the applicant leave to appeal against a decision of the Residential Tenancies Tribunal.

2. The Tribunal ordered (among other things) that the residential tenancy agreement relating to the applicant's occupancy of certain residential premises in the Australian Capital Territory should "be terminated at 10 am on 21 May 2007" and that the respondent have vacant possession of the premises.

3. By summons filed in his application for special leave to appeal to this Court the applicant seeks orders staying the orders of the Tribunal and orders that would require the respondent either to replace the locks that were on the premises before the Tribunal made its orders or to give the applicant's agent keys to the premises.  The applicant sought from the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, but was refused, a stay of the Tribunal's orders pending determination of his application to this Court for special leave.

4. Section 125 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (ACT) permitted a party to a proceeding before the Tribunal to appeal to the Supreme Court "on a question of law". Such an appeal may be brought only by leave.

5. The applicant would seek to allege in this Court that he should have been able to argue on appeal to the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory that the Tribunal's order "breached an estoppel and is completely unreasonable".  He submits that the several decisions of the Supreme Court have wrongly concluded that the matters which he would seek to agitate were not "on a question of law".

6. It is unnecessary to consider whether the applicant is or may be right in his argument that he sought to appeal to the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory "on a question of law".  There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the conclusions reached by Lander J and by the Court of Appeal that the applicant's arguments about estoppel must fail.

7. It follows that special leave to appeal to this Court should be refused.  There is no occasion to grant any stay of the kind sought by the applicant or to make any of the other orders he sought by his summons.

8. Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

K.M. Hayne
6 October 2011 S.M. Crennan