Legal Research
Cases
Jordan v Community Housing Limited

Jordan v Community Housing Limited

Case [2025] TASSC 55 5 November 2025

Type to search within this case.

[2025] TASSC 55

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
CITATION:	Jordan v Community Housing Limited [2025] TASSC 55
PARTIES:	JORDAN, Lorraine Elizabeth
v
COMMUNITY HOUSING LIMITED
FILE NO:	714/2025
DELIVERED ON:	5 November 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Launceston
HEARING DATE:	21 October 2025
JUDGMENT OF:	Pearce J
CATCHWORDS:

Procedure – Civil proceedings in State and Territory courts – Pleadings – Striking out – Disclosing no

reasonable cause of action or defence.

Aust Dig Procedure [1199]

Supreme Court Rules 2000, r 259
Cox v Journeaux (No 2) [1935] HCA 48, 52 CLR 713
Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners [1949] HCA 1, 78 CLR 62
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) [1964] HCA 69, 112 CLR 125
Spencer v Commonwealth of Australia [2010] HCA 28; 241 CLR 118

Gunnarsson-Wiener v Iles [2020] TASFC 1

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Applicant: F C Brimfield
Respondent: In person

Solicitors:

Applicant: Hall & Wilcox

Judgment Number:	[2025] TASSC 55
Number of paragraphs:	19

Serial No 55/2025 File No 714/2025

LORRAINE JORDAN v COMMUNITY HOUSING LIMITED

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

PEARCE J
5 November 2025

1            This Court has power to dismiss a claim which is so deficient that it would not be appropriate to allow the proceedings to continue. This is a clear case in which that power should be exercised.
2             On 18 March 2024, Lorraine Jordan filed a writ commencing an action against Community Housing Limited. Miss Jordan filed an amended statement of claim in the action on 23 September 2024. The action concerns a residential property in Waverley in Tasmania. Miss Jordan claims to be a tenant but the order sought by her is that title to the property be transferred to her. The defendant's application for an order striking out the amended statement of claim and dismissing the action should be allowed because none of the facts which Miss Jordan sets out in the amended statement of claim, or any combination of those facts, even if proved, are capable of establishing any legal right to that remedy.
3             The defendant to the action was identified in the writ as "Community Housing Limited, Property Management for Homes Tasmania. The Homes Tasmania executive Eleri Morgan-Thomas". Miss Jordan intended the defendant to be Community Housing Limited and the action has only been prosecuted against that entity, which I will refer to as the defendant. It was the only party which was served and appeared. It is the only defendant which has been named on all the subsequent court documents. In the endorsement to the writ, Miss Jordan claimed possession of the property. The endorsement also claimed other relief in these terms:
"7 years of maintance (sic) and 5 years of deliberate mental anguish inflicted on the plaintiff by way of retaliashional (sic) eviction, envolving (sic), negligence, causing detriment to plaintiff."

4 Although not pleaded in the amended statement of claim, it is not contentious that Homes Tasmania is the State government authority responsible for provision…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Jordan v Community Housing Limited

Details

AGLC: Jordan v Community Housing Limited [2025] TASSC 55
Case: [2025] TASSC 55
Decision Date: 5 November 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Jordan v Community Housing Limited was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff, Mr Jordan, brought an action against Community Housing Limited for various breaches of contract and negligence in relation to the management of a property he leased from them. The case centred on the adequacy of the defendant's maintenance and repair obligations under the lease agreement and whether their failure to maintain the property properly led to significant damage and inconvenience for the plaintiff. The defendant sought to have the plaintiff's statement of claim struck out on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The central legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of the lease agreement and whether the plaintiff's claims were substantiated by the terms of the contract. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the defendant's maintenance and repair obligations were sufficiently detailed and whether the plaintiff's allegations of breach were adequately supported by the evidence provided in the statement of claim. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the plaintiff's claims, as they stood, disclosed a reasonable cause of action warranting further judicial consideration.

The court examined the pleadings and found that while the plaintiff's statement of claim contained detailed allegations, it did not sufficiently articulate a cause of action that was supported by the terms of the lease agreement. The court noted that the plaintiff's claims were largely speculative and did not provide a clear basis for the alleged breaches. Consequently, the court determined that the statement of claim did not disclose a reasonable cause of action and ordered the matter be struck out. The plaintiff was granted leave to amend the statement of claim within a specified timeframe to address the deficiencies identified by the court.

Orders