Duryea v Hiles

The applicant, Duryea, brought an appeal against the decision of Hiles, who was the respondent in the primary tribunal. The dispute centred around the residential tenancy of an acreage block that Duryea had leased for the purpose of keeping racehorses. The tenancy lasted over four years, during which significant damage and wear and tear were caused by the presence of the horses. Hiles produced a report detailing the cost of the structural damage necessary to reinstate the premises, but the report was submitted late. The central issue was whether Duryea was given sufficient time to meet the claim prior to the hearing, and if the late production of the report denied Duryea procedural fairness. Duryea did not seek an adjournment of the hearing or object to the late production of the report and represented themselves in the proceedings.

The court had to determine if the late production of the report constituted a breach of procedural fairness. Given that the report was submitted after the claim was made, the court considered the timing and the opportunity Duryea had to respond. The court also examined Duryea's failure to seek an adjournment or object to the late production, which suggested that the issue of procedural fairness was not adequately raised in the primary tribunal. The court concluded that the primary tribunal's decision did not adequately address the issue of procedural fairness and that the late production of the report might have impacted Duryea's ability to adequately respond to the claim.

The court granted leave to appeal and set aside the decision ordering Duryea to pay Hiles $19,798.00. The case was remitted to the minor civil disputes jurisdiction for reconsideration by the original adjudicator. Duryea was required to file any further evidence, including expert evidence, in response to the report within 28 days of the publication of the decision. Hiles was required to allow Duryea access to the property for the purpose of preparing any further evidence, upon giving 5 days' notice to Hiles. This decision highlighted the importance of procedural fairness in residential tenancy disputes and underscored the need for timely production of evidence to ensure a fair hearing.