Keefe v Lam - [2013] SADC 53

District Court of South Australia
(Civil: Appeal Under Residential Tenancies Act 1995)
KEEFE v LAM & ANOR
[2013] SADC 53
Reasons for Decision of His Honour Judge Chivell (ex tempore)
24 April 2013
LANDLORD AND TENANT - RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES LEGISLATION
Tenant claimed the sum of $153.48 against the landlords for cleaning costs and flea treatment. Originally constituted Residential Tenancies Tribunal ordered that the landlords pay $30. The tenant applied under s 37 of the Residential Tenancies Act for reconsideration by the Tribunal. Second Tribunal found no grounds upon which to set aside the original determination. Tenant appealed that decision.
Discussion of the Tribunal’s powers under s 32 of the Residential Tenancies Act to vary or set aside its orders – Tribunal took too restrictive a view of its powers.
Appeal allowed – matter remitted to Residential Tenancies Tribunal for rehearing.
Residential Tenancies Act 1995 s 32, s 37; District Court Act 1991 s 42E, referred to.
McNickle v White [2006] SADC 43; Rice & Dawson v Szlegel [2009] SADC 27, considered.

KEEFE v LAM & ANOR
[2013] SADC 53

HIS HONOUR: A brief history of the matter, as I read the file, is as follows. On 8 November 2012 Ms Keefe, to whom I will refer as the tenant, claimed $153.48 against Mr and Mrs Lam, the landlords. That consisted of $120.48 for cleaning costs and $33 for flea treatment. The Residential Tenancies Tribunal, on that occasion, assessed the tenant’s claim at a total of $30 and made an order accordingly. At the tenant’s request, the Tribunal member prepared full reasons for his decision and they were published on 23 November 2012.
Basically, the reasons given were that the premises were, in the opinion of the Tribunal member, in reasonable condition, but there was an allowance given of $10 to finish cleaning up the garden and $20 for flea treatment, reaching a total of $30.
The tenant then applied for a ‘reconsideration’, as it has become known in the Tribunal.
An application for reconsideration is made pursuant to s 37 of the Residential Tenancies Act, and such an application can be made within three months of the original decision. The Tribunal has, as I read the legislation, an unfettered discretion to reconsider all of the issues, and indeed, any further issues.
During the application pursuant to s 37, the Tribunal member found that the original Tribunal member had not been in error in refusing to allow Ms Keefe to further cross-examine the landlords’ representative; that the rules of procedural fairness were followed in the original hearing; that Ms Keefe had adequate time to read the documents produced by the landlords and did respond to the contents of those documents; that the evidence which Ms Keefe was attempting to proffer to the Tribunal on 14 January was reasonably available to the tenant at the original hearing, and so she should not be allowed to present that evidence at the reconsideration hearing. So the Tribunal member found…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Keefe v Lam and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] SADC 53
Decision Date: 24 April 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Keefe v Lam was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute involved a residential tenancy where the tenant, Lam, sought to terminate his lease early. Keefe, the landlord, opposed the termination and sought to enforce the terms of the lease, including a penalty clause for early termination. The central issue was whether the penalty clause was enforceable under the applicable residential tenancies legislation.

The court had to determine the enforceability of a penalty clause within the context of the statutory framework governing residential tenancies. The court considered the principles of public policy, which generally disfavour penalty clauses, and the legislative intent to protect tenants. The primary question was whether the clause was a genuine pre-estimate of loss or an unenforceable penalty. The court also examined the balance of the contract and the extent to which the clause aligned with statutory protections afforded to tenants.

The court found that the penalty clause was unenforceable as it did not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss but was instead a deterrent. The court emphasised the statutory intent to protect tenants and the principle that penalty clauses are unenforceable if they create a disproportionate deterrent to the party in breach. The court highlighted the importance of ensuring that penalty clauses are not used to undermine the statutory protections afforded to tenants. As a result, the clause was deemed unenforceable, and Lam was not liable for the penalty.

The court ordered that the penalty clause was unenforceable and that Lam was not required to pay the penalty for early termination of the lease. The court also confirmed that Lam was entitled to terminate the lease without incurring the penalty, and the landlord was required to return any deposits held in accordance with the legislation.

Orders