Hudson v ARAP 1 (NSW) Pty Ltd

The appeal concerned the jurisdiction of the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) to hear an application under section 84 of the *Residential Tenancies Act 2010* (NSW). The dispute arose from an agreement between Hudson and ARAP 1 (NSW) Pty Ltd, which the latter argued was a contract for the sale of land or an agreement under a mortgage, thereby falling outside the scope of the *Residential Tenancies Act*. The matter came before Bathurst CJ, Emmett JA, and Bergin CJ in Eq in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the agreement between the parties constituted an agreement for the sale of land that conferred a right to occupy residential premises under section 8(1)(f) of the *Residential Tenancies Act 2010*, or an agreement under a term of a mortgage that conferred a right to occupy residential premises under section 8(1)(g) of the same Act. The court was required to interpret these provisions and construe the nature of the agreement in light of the relevant statutory framework and contractual principles.

The court applied principles of statutory interpretation, considering a plain reading of the legislation, its general purpose and policy, and extrinsic materials. It also considered principles of contract construction, including implied terms not to hamper performance and to co-operate in carrying out the agreement. The court found that the agreement did not fall within the exceptions provided by sections 8(1)(f) or 8(1)(g) of the *Residential Tenancies Act 2010*. Consequently, the court determined that NCAT did have jurisdiction to hear the application.

The court ordered that the decisions of the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal, made on 1 July 2014, 21 August 2014, and 15 October 2014, be quashed. There was no order as to costs.