Miroslawski v Housing Choices SA

This matter concerned an application for a stay of a South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (SACAT) order for vacant possession of residential premises. The applicant, Mr Miroslawski, was the tenant, and the respondent was Housing Choices SA, the landlord. The Tribunal had made an order for vacant possession pursuant to section 93 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1995 (SA) following a notice of termination for breach.

The legal issue before the court was whether to grant a stay of the order for vacant possession. This required the court to consider whether the applicant had established the necessary factual foundation for the application, particularly in relation to the availability of alternative accommodation, which was central to any claim of severe hardship under section 93(4) of the Act.

The court reasoned that the applicant had not established the factual foundation for the application for a stay. While the applicant's case was predicated on the assertion that he remained without alternative accommodation, the evidence before the Tribunal, including an email from the applicant's social worker, indicated that alternative accommodation was available in the form of residential care respite, with a view to permanent care. The social worker's email detailed discussions with the applicant about this option, his agreement to it, and efforts to secure an admission date. The court found that this evidence demonstrated that accommodation was available to the applicant, undermining the basis of his application for a stay.

Consequently, the application for a stay was dismissed. The court also made an order for costs fixed at $400, with execution of that order stayed pending further order.