Gerondal and Gerondal v ACT Planning and Land Authority (Administrative Review)

The applicants, Gerondal and Gerondal, sought a review of a decision by the ACT Planning and Land Authority to terminate their Crown lease. The dispute centred on whether the termination of the lease, pursuant to the Planning and Development Act 2007 (PD Act), was justified. The applicants contested the decision on multiple grounds, including the applicability of orders made by the ACT Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) under the now repealed Land (Planning and Environment) Act 1991 (LPE Act) and the survival of rights and liabilities following the repeal of the LPE Act.

The central legal issues were whether the AAT order and a subsequent rectification notice could be enforced under the PD Act, and if the lease could be terminated for non-compliance with these orders. The court had to determine if the PD Act permits the termination of a lease for contraventions that were not offences under the repealed LPE Act, and whether the PD Act's termination provision could operate retrospectively. Additionally, the court examined if the lease could be terminated for breaches of maintenance and repair requirements and if such a termination would infringe on the applicants' right to not have their home interfered with unlawfully or arbitrarily.

The court found that the AAT order and rectification notice under the LPE Act could not be enforced under the PD Act for items that had been complied with. The court held that the PD Act does not require a contravention to be an "offence" for lease termination, but that the lease could not be terminated for non-compliance with the AAT order or rectification notice since such a measure was not available under the LPE Act. The court also concluded that there is a presumption against retrospective operation of the lease termination provision in the PD Act. Furthermore, the court found that the lease did not provide for termination for breaches of maintenance and repair requirements, and that while the failure to keep the leasehold clean is a controlled activity, it did not, without more, justify lease termination. Finally, the court determined that the lease termination would not render the applicants homeless, despite their bankruptcies.

The Tribunal ordered that the decision dated 19 December 2013 to terminate the Crown lease of the premises be set aside.