Markiewicz v Crnjac
Case
•
[2021] VSCA 290
•25 October 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Markiewicz v Crnjac [2021] VSCA 290
[2021] VSCA 290
25 October 2021
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Markiewicz v Crnjac involved a tenant, Markiewicz, who was unable to pay rent due to financial hardship caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The landlord, Crnjac, issued a notice to vacate and subsequently obtained an order for possession against Markiewicz for non-payment of rent. Markiewicz appealed the order for possession, arguing that they were protected under a now-repealed provision in the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (RTA) that shielded tenants from breaches due to COVID-19. The court had to determine whether Markiewicz remained protected under the repealed provision despite the order for possession.
The court considered whether the repealed provision continued to apply to Markiewicz, despite the expiration of the protection under Part 16 of the RTA. Regulation 14 of the COVID-19 Omnibus (Emergency Measures) Transitional Regulations 2021 extended the protection provided by the now-repealed section 542 of the RTA, restricting the operation of section 91ZM in respect of COVID-19 arrears. The court had to interpret the interplay between the repealed statute and the transitional regulation to determine whether Markiewicz was still protected against the order for possession.
The court concluded that regulation 14 extended the protection provided by the repealed section 542, which meant that Markiewicz remained protected against the order for possession under section 91ZM of the RTA. The court allowed Markiewicz’s appeal, holding that the protection continued until regulation 14 expired. The court’s decision ensured that Markiewicz was shielded from the order for possession while the transitional regulation was in effect.
The court ordered that the order for possession obtained by Crnjac be set aside, allowing Markiewicz to remain in the property until the transitional regulation ceased to apply. The court’s ruling provided clarity on the continued protection available to tenants facing financial hardship due to the COVID-19 pandemic, despite the repeal of specific provisions in the RTA.
The court considered whether the repealed provision continued to apply to Markiewicz, despite the expiration of the protection under Part 16 of the RTA. Regulation 14 of the COVID-19 Omnibus (Emergency Measures) Transitional Regulations 2021 extended the protection provided by the now-repealed section 542 of the RTA, restricting the operation of section 91ZM in respect of COVID-19 arrears. The court had to interpret the interplay between the repealed statute and the transitional regulation to determine whether Markiewicz was still protected against the order for possession.
The court concluded that regulation 14 extended the protection provided by the repealed section 542, which meant that Markiewicz remained protected against the order for possession under section 91ZM of the RTA. The court allowed Markiewicz’s appeal, holding that the protection continued until regulation 14 expired. The court’s decision ensured that Markiewicz was shielded from the order for possession while the transitional regulation was in effect.
The court ordered that the order for possession obtained by Crnjac be set aside, allowing Markiewicz to remain in the property until the transitional regulation ceased to apply. The court’s ruling provided clarity on the continued protection available to tenants facing financial hardship due to the COVID-19 pandemic, despite the repeal of specific provisions in the RTA.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Property Law
Legal Concepts
-
Breach of Contract
-
Repudiation & Termination
-
Frustration of Contract
-
Limitation Periods
-
Regulatory Compliance
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Markiewicz v Crnjac [2021] VSCA 290
Most Recent Citation
Environment East Gippsland Inc. v VicForests (No 3) [2022] VSC 141
Cases Citing This Decision
8
Zakhour v The Queen
[2022] VSCA 63
Liu v Tang
[2022] VSC 243
Environment East Gippsland Inc. v VicForests (No 3)
[2022] VSC 141
Cases Cited
11
Statutory Material Cited
0
Progressive Mailing House Pty Ltd v Tabali Pty Ltd
[1985] HCA 14