Maytom v Laundy

In the matter of Maytom v Laundy, the plaintiffs, comprising an elderly woman and her granddaughter, were residing in a studio apartment situated above a public bar on a week-to-week tenancy. The plaintiffs sought urgent relief in the Supreme Court of New South Wales to prevent enforcement of a notice to vacate the premises, which required them to leave the following day. The plaintiffs did not contest the validity of the notice to vacate under the terms of their tenancy agreement, nor did they argue that the tenancy was subject to the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) or the Boarding Houses Act 2012 (NSW). Instead, the plaintiffs contended that the notice to vacate constituted age and disability discrimination against the elderly woman, who suffered from visual impairment, deafness, and other complex medical needs, and who was accompanied by an assistance cat. The plaintiffs sought an interim order under section 105 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) to maintain the status quo until the matter could be fully heard.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Supreme Court had the jurisdiction to make an interim order under section 105 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW). The court considered the role of the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) within the regulatory scheme, and concluded that the power to make such interim orders was exclusively vested in the NCAT. The court held that the Supreme Court did not have the authority to grant the interim order sought by the plaintiffs. Additionally, the court found that the named defendants in the summons were not the appropriate parties to the claim, as there was no evidence to establish that they were the registered proprietors of the hotel or the actual parties with whom the plaintiffs had an arrangement for occupation of the apartment. Consequently, the plaintiffs' application for an interim order was dismissed.

The court found that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated that the named defendants were the appropriate parties to the claim, as there was no formal proof or evidence that they were the registered proprietors of the hotel or the actual parties with whom the plaintiffs had an arrangement for occupation of the apartment. The court also noted that there was no indication that the named defendants had any knowledge of the notice to vacate. As a result, the plaintiffs' application for an interim order under section 105 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) was dismissed. The Supreme Court affirmed that the power to make such interim orders was exclusively vested in the NCAT.