Ettles v Hicks

This matter came before Stanley J in the Supreme Court of South Australia on an urgent application for a stay of proceedings. The applicant, Ms Ettles, sought this stay pending the hearing of her application for leave to appeal orders made by the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal). The Tribunal's orders, made on 22 July 2025, varied an earlier order from 19 June 2025, which had affirmed a decision to terminate Ms Ettles' residential tenancy agreement and evict her from the property. The variation extended the period for Ms Ettles to vacate the property until 1 August 2025, after which the order for vacant possession could be enforced by the Tribunal bailiff.

The legal issues before the court concerned Ms Ettles' application for a stay of the Tribunal's orders and an alternative application to vary those orders by reinstating the tenancy and rehearing the matter. Ms Ettles also sought an extension of time to bring her appeal. The underlying dispute arose from a tenancy agreement entered into on 27 May 2024, a subsequent notice of breach served on 17 January 2025 regarding the poor condition of the property, and the respondent landlord's application to the Tribunal for vacant possession due to the alleged failure to remedy the breach.

Stanley J considered the principles governing the grant of a stay of proceedings. The court's reasoning focused on whether Ms Ettles had demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of success on appeal to warrant a stay, and whether the balance of convenience favoured granting the stay. The court noted that the applicant's grounds of appeal were not fully articulated at this preliminary stage, but the urgency of the application and the potential impact of immediate eviction were significant factors. The court also had regard to the terms of the Residential Tenancies Act 1995 (SA), particularly section 69(1), which outlines a tenant's obligations regarding the condition of the premises.

The court ultimately granted the stay of the Tribunal's orders pending the hearing of the application for leave to appeal, on the condition that Ms Ettles pay rent into court and comply with certain undertakings regarding the property's condition. This decision allowed Ms Ettles to remain in the property while her appeal rights were determined.