Eastman v Commissioner for Social Housing

The appeal concerned a decision of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, which had refused the appellant, Ms. Eastman, leave to appeal against a decision of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The respondent was the Commissioner for Social Housing. Ms. Eastman sought to appeal the Tribunal's decision, but the primary judge found that if leave were granted, the appeal would be bound to fail.

The Court was required to determine whether the primary judge erred in refusing leave to appeal on the basis that the appeal would inevitably fail. This involved considering the proper test for exercising the discretion to grant leave to appeal, and specifically, whether a mixed question of fact and law could constitute a "question of law" for the purposes of an appeal under section 125 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (ACT). The Court also considered whether an estoppel existed and whether the Tribunal's decision was unreasonably unreasonable.

The Court held that a mixed question of fact and law is not a question of law for the purpose of section 125 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (ACT). It found no error in the primary judge's assessment that the grounds of appeal did not raise a question of law. The Court also concluded that the circumstances relied upon by Ms. Eastman did not give rise to an estoppel, and the decision under review was not Wednesbury unreasonable.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and Ms. Eastman was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.