Ebrahim v St George Community Housing Limited trading as SGCH
[2025] NSWSC 1251
•16 October 2025
|
New South Wales |
Case Name: | Ebrahim v St George Community Housing Limited trading as SGCH |
Medium Neutral Citation: | [2025] NSWSC 1251 |
Hearing Date(s): | 15-16 October 2025 |
Date of Orders: | 16 October 2025 |
Decision Date: | 16 October 2025 |
Jurisdiction: | Common Law |
Before: | Cavanagh J |
Decision: | The application filed on 1 October 2025 seeking stay of execution of NCAT orders is refused. |
Catchwords: | CIVIL PROCEDURE – stay of proceedings – valid termination of lease – orders made by NCAT to that effect – stay refused |
Legislation Cited: | Nil |
Cases Cited: | Nil |
Texts Cited: | Nil |
Category: | Principal judgment |
Parties: | Salahaldin Hamdy Mohamed Ebrahim (Plaintiff) |
Representation: | Solicitors: |
File Number(s): | 2025/00394742 |
Publication Restriction: | Nil |
REVISED EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT
This matter comes before me in the duty list as duty judge on Wednesday 15 October. The plaintiff appeared ex parte seeking an urgent stay of orders made by the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT), the effect of which is that he would be required to leave the premises where he resides at Bonnyrigg. As he says, if he is not allowed to reside there he and his family will face homelessness. The plaintiff originally appeared on 15 October but I stood the matter over until today.
The basis of the stay is:
(1)Hardship. He has nowhere else to go; and,
(2)He has filed an appeal seeking to challenge the decision of the NCAT Appeal Panel dated 22 September 2025.
On the application today the plaintiff appears unrepresented. Ms York, solicitor, appears on behalf of St George Community Housing and two persons who work for the House of Welcome, that is, persons who are assisting migrants into the community, attended. As I indicated I would only permit one of those persons to speak, Ms Tupaea, a representative of House of Welcome, is here representing the House of Welcome.
The background to the matter is that St George Community Housing, which is the first defendant, offers accommodation for rental from time to time to organisations such as the second defendant, Saint Francis Social Services (House of Welcome), who in turn provide assistance, in particular, to persons coming to this country who need assistance for short-term accommodation.
As I understand it, the plaintiff came from Egypt this year, in 2025. He was put in touch with the House of Welcome. They have assisted him by providing accommodation to him for he and his family. As the plaintiff says, he anticipated that that period of accommodation would last 12 months. He is endeavouring to make plans to settle in Australia and at the moment he is on a bridging visa.
Unfortunately, recently St George Community Housing, being the owner of the property, has been forced to terminate its lease with the House of Welcome, I understand on the basis that the property forms part of a group of properties which may be scheduled for demolition. In the circumstances, St George Community Housing gave notice to the House of Welcome that it would be terminating the lease and that it would be necessary for the occupant, being the plaintiff, to vacate the premises. The plaintiff has no relationship with St George Community Housing. That is, he has no contract or lease with St George Community Housing.
St George Community Housing sought orders from NCAT to the effect that it had validly terminated the lease and orders, therefore, requiring vacant possession to be given. NCAT made those orders.
The plaintiff’s main contention is that when he moved into the housing the House of Welcome told him that it would be for 12 months, that he has planned to be there for 12 months and that if he is required to leave now he will be homeless.
It emerged during the hearing that the House of Welcome had offered the plaintiff alternative accommodation in the nature of a home unit but the plaintiff declined to accept that offer. He informed me today that he considered the accommodation unsuitable for his family for various reasons. Again, I am not here to judge the suitability or otherwise of any accommodation but it is notable that the House of Welcome has done what it could to provide alternative accommodation for the plaintiff.
Unfortunately, it is not now in a position to offer any alternative accommodation. It is a small charitable organisation doing its best to assist people. Obviously it does not have unlimited resources to simply find alternative accommodation for people coming to this country.
The plaintiff is unrepresented and I accept the limitations in the presentation of the application and the grounds on which the application is sought. It is notable that he has filed a notice of appeal and I would assume that his principal ground for a stay is that he wishes a stay until his appeal is heard. However, the filing of a notice of appeal does not automatically lead to a stay.
I have read the appeal grounds. Unfortunately, the grounds seem to misunderstand the relationship between the plaintiff and the House of Welcome and St George Community Housing. As I have said, St George Community Housing obtained an order from NCAT to the effect that it had validly terminated the lease with the House of Welcome. NCAT refused standing to the plaintiff
I am not satisfied that there is anything set out in the summons seeking appeal which would lead to any conclusion that NCAT erred on the position it took.
In the circumstances, the plaintiff’s application for a stay of the orders made by NCAT that require him to leave the premises at a certain time, on 20 October, is refused.
**********
0
0
1