Dowker v Paoletti

This matter concerned an appeal to the Supreme Court of South Australia from orders made by the District Court, which itself had reviewed decisions of the Residential Tenancies Tribunal. The dispute involved a landlord, Mr Paoletti, seeking vacant possession of a property from the tenants, Ms Dowker and others. The tenants had previously entered into a contract for the sale and purchase of the land, which included a tenancy agreement.

The primary legal issues before the Supreme Court were whether the District Court judge had erred in finding that the tenants had breached the terms of the tenancy agreement, specifically concerning the presence of dogs on the premises after a certain date, and whether the judge had been correct in rejecting the tenants' explanations for this breach. The court also considered whether the tenants had refused the landlord or his agents access to the premises and whether rent was in arrears, although the focus of the appeal appears to have been on the breach relating to the pets.

The Supreme Court, comprising Kourakis CJ, Stanley and Parker JJ, reviewed the evidence presented to the District Court. The judge had found that emails and a photograph indicated the presence of dogs in the house after the date stipulated in previous orders, despite the tenants' denials. The judge rejected the tenants' assertions that the emails referred to past events and that the photograph was old, concluding that the evidence demonstrated a breach of the no-pets clause in the tenancy agreement. The court also noted that the tenants' refusal to grant access to the property was a relevant factor in assessing their credibility.

The Supreme Court ultimately set aside the original orders for vacant possession made by the Residential Tenancies Tribunal. However, it imposed new terms and conditions. These included requiring the tenants to commence legal action regarding the contract of sale and tenancy agreement within 90 days, and to strictly observe the terms of the tenancy agreement, including the prohibition on keeping pets, during that period. Liberty was granted to the landlord to apply for the discharge of these orders if the tenants failed to comply with the new conditions.