Luke Marsh v ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal
[2016] ACTSC 147
•15 June 2016
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | Luke Marsh v ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal |
Citation: | [2016] ACTSC 147 |
Hearing Date: | 15 June 2016 |
DecisionDate: | 15 June 2016 |
Before: | Murrell CJ |
Decision: | Application dismissed. |
Catchwords: | LANDLORD AND TENANT – TERMINATION OF THE TENANCY – Injunction to stay warrant for eviction – Application dismissed |
Parties: | Luke Marsh (Applicant) Ex-parte |
Representation: | Counsel Self-represented (Applicant) Ex parte |
| Solicitors Self-represented (Applicant) Ex parte | |
File Number: | SC 252 of 2016 |
MURRELL CJ:
Today the applicant lodged an originating application.
The matter is before me ex parte.
The order sought in the application is an “injunction on ACAT orders made 9 May 2016”. The grounds of the application are “ACAT has breached order”.
The ACAT order of 9 May is annexed to the application. It says that it has effect as a warrant for eviction from a property in Dickson because the tenant had not paid to the lessor the sum of $22,654.54 in rent. The warrant was stayed until 30 May.
The supporting affidavit does not add anything of relevance.
The applicant verbally explained the history. As far as I can understand it, it is to the following effect. At the time that the applicant went into prison, he had a lease over a Northbourne Avenue property from the Commissioner for Social Housing. The property was flooded and upon his release from prison he found it to be unsuitable to live in. There were proceedings resulting in an order for him to relocate to a property at Dickson, the property in relation to which the eviction order of 9 May was made.
The originating application is totally without merit. First, it claims orders against ACAT. Any order should have been sought against the Commissioner for Social Housing as the lessor. Second, it claims that ACAT has erred by failing to provide the applicant with keys to the Northbourne Avenue property, but the order does not have anything to do with the Northbourne Avenue property. Third, the applicant has been evicted.
The applicant states that he has also lodged an appeal against the orders ACAT made on 9 May 2016 and if there is any claim of substance, that appeal is the appropriate process, not this application.
The application is dismissed.
| I certify that the preceding nine [9] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of her Honour Chief Justice Murrell. Associate: Date: 30 June 2016 |
0
0
0