John Xu v Director of Housing

[2012] HCASL 185

JOHN XU

v

DIRECTOR OF HOUSING

[2012] HCASL 185
M62/2012
M63/2012
M64/2012

1. These applications for special leave to appeal concern three separate proceedings commenced by the applicant in the County Court of Victoria.  In each proceeding, the applicant sought orders pursuant to s 73 or s 75 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (Vic) ("the Act") directing the respondent to carry out certain repairs on premises that the respondent leased to the applicant. The repairs consisted of the relocation of a bathroom exhaust fan and the installation of a bulkhead in the bathroom. The applicant also raised a complaint about several windows said to be in need of repair.

2. On 16 April 2012, the primary judge (Kennedy J) held that the County Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the applications. The Act conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal ("the Tribunal") to make orders for repairs costing less than $10,000. Her Honour found that the bathroom repairs would cost less than $10,000. Regarding the windows, her Honour held that even if the cost of repairs might exceed $10,000, the issue was non-justiciable in the County Court because proceedings concerning those repairs were already underway in the Tribunal.

3. On 8 June 2012, the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Nettle JA, with whom Buchanan JA agreed) refused the applicant leave to appeal against the decision of the primary judge.  Nettle JA affirmed the primary judge's conclusion that the County Court did not have jurisdiction to order the bathroom repairs because that Court does not have jurisdiction to grant such orders in relation to repairs costing less than $10,000.  His Honour further held that, even if the County Court had some basis for exercising jurisdiction over the claim relating to the window repairs, there was no risk of injustice in declining to hear that application because the Tribunal had jurisdiction to grant the relief sought.

4. The applicant seeks special leave to appeal to this Court against the decision of the Court of Appeal.  The applicant has not, however, identified any questions of law that would justify a grant of special leave.  There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the Court of Appeal's decision.

S.M. Kiefel
12 December 2012 S.J. Gageler

1. Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing each application.