Dorante-Day, Keshia v Martin

The case of Dorante-Day, Keshia v Martin involves a dispute regarding the termination of a residential tenancy agreement. The Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal had ruled in favour of the defendant, Martin, who terminated the tenancy due to the plaintiff, Dorante-Day, not paying rent. Dorante-Day sought judicial review of the Tribunal's decision, arguing that she was denied procedural fairness and that the Tribunal Member prejudged the matter. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The legal issues in this case were whether the plaintiff was denied procedural fairness and whether the Tribunal Member prejudged the matter. Dorante-Day argued that she was not given an opportunity to respond to the allegations of non-payment of rent, and that the Tribunal Member appeared to have already made up their mind on the matter. Martin contended that Dorante-Day was given an opportunity to respond and that there was no evidence of prejudgment.

The court found that Dorante-Day was given an opportunity to respond to the allegations of non-payment of rent, and that the Tribunal Member did not prejudge the matter. The court held that the Tribunal's decision was not affected by any alleged procedural unfairness or prejudgment. The court found that Dorante-Day was given an opportunity to present evidence and arguments in relation to the termination of the tenancy agreement, and that the Tribunal Member considered this evidence and arguments in making their decision. The court also held that there was no evidence to suggest that the Tribunal Member prejudged the matter.

In conclusion, the court dismissed Dorante-Day's application for judicial review, finding that the Tribunal's decision was not affected by any alleged procedural unfairness or prejudgment. The court found that Dorante-Day was given an opportunity to present evidence and arguments in relation to the termination of the tenancy agreement, and that the Tribunal Member considered this evidence and arguments in making their decision. The court also held that there was no evidence to suggest that the Tribunal Member prejudged the matter. As a result, the decision of the Tribunal was upheld, and the tenancy agreement was terminated.