McNamara v Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by a tenant against the Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales (RTA), the landlord. The RTA had sought an order for vacant possession of the premises from the Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal under the *Residential Tenancies Act 1987* (NSW). The tenant contended that the premises were "prescribed premises" under the *Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act 1948* (NSW) and thus exempt from the operation of the *Residential Tenancies Act 1987* (NSW). The central question was whether the RTA, as a statutory body representing the Crown, was entitled to the benefit of an exemption from the *Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act 1948* (NSW) that applied to "the Crown in right of the State".

The High Court was required to determine the proper construction of the *Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act 1948* (NSW) and the *Transport Administration Act 1988* (NSW). Specifically, the Court had to consider whether the RTA, established under the *Transport Administration Act 1988* (NSW) and designated by section 46(2)(b) of that Act as "a statutory body representing the Crown", qualified for the exemption afforded to "the Crown in right of the State" under the *Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act 1948* (NSW).

The Court reasoned that the *Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act 1948* (NSW) was intended to apply to private landlords and tenants, and that the exemption for "the Crown in right of the State" reflected a specific legislative intent to exclude Crown instrumentalities from its operation. The Court held that the designation of the RTA as "a statutory body representing the Crown" under the *Transport Administration Act 1988* (NSW) meant that it was to be treated as the Crown for the purposes of any Act. Therefore, the RTA was entitled to the benefit of the exemption in the *Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act 1948* (NSW).

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, and remitted the matter to the Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal to be determined according to law. Costs were awarded against the second respondent.