Eastman v Commissioner for Housing for the ACT

The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory heard an appeal by David Harold Eastman against orders of the Residential Tenancies Tribunal terminating his tenancy of a unit in Reid, ACT. The appeal was allowed, and the orders of the Tribunal were set aside. The Commissioner for Housing had applied to the Tribunal for a termination and possession order against Eastman. A copy of the application and a hearing notice were sent by post to Eastman at an address where he was no longer incarcerated. Eastman did not receive the documents until 16 November 2001, when he wrote to the Tribunal requesting an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for 26 November. The letter was received by the Tribunal on 23 November. Eastman telephoned the Tribunal on the same date, requesting an adjournment or the establishment of an audio or video link so that he could participate in the hearing. The Tribunal refused the request, proceeding to hear the application ex parte. The Court held that the Tribunal had failed to accord Eastman procedural fairness, and that it should have granted an adjournment to enable Eastman to have some meaningful form of participation in the hearing. The Court concluded that the Tribunal had a discretion to make an order other than one for termination and possession or to decline to make any order at all, and that Eastman had an arguable prospect of achieving a materially different result from that represented by the orders of the Tribunal. The appeal was allowed, and the application of the Commissioner for Housing was remitted to the Tribunal to be heard and determined according to law.