Mooney-Pursell v Commissioner for Social Housing (Appeal)

In this case, the applicant, Mooney-Pursell, appealed a decision of the original tribunal which had ordered the termination of her residential tenancy and possession of the premises. The basis of the tribunal's decision was that the premises had become uninhabitable. The appeal was heard by the Tribunal, which had to decide whether the original tribunal had correctly concluded it had no discretion to suspend the order and whether the tenant had been afforded procedural fairness during the proceedings. Specifically, the Tribunal needed to assess whether the tenant was given notice of the witnesses, and if the fact that witnesses were in the hearing room at the same time and spoke to each other during evidence contravened the procedural fairness obligation.

The Tribunal considered the arguments put forward by the tenant, which included the assertion that the witnesses were not properly disclosed, and that their conversation during the hearing influenced the outcome. The Tribunal examined the evidence and concluded that the witnesses did not influence each other's testimony and that there was no practical injustice or unfairness caused to the tenant. The Tribunal further found that the tenant was aware of the witnesses and their potential testimonies, and that the manner in which the witnesses were present during the hearing did not contravene procedural fairness obligations.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the orders of the original tribunal. The Tribunal held that the original tribunal had correctly concluded that it had no discretion to suspend the termination and possession order. The Tribunal also found that the procedural fairness obligations were met, and the tenant had notice of the witnesses. As a result, the appeal was unsuccessful and the original tribunal's decision stood.

ORDERS:
The Tribunal orders that:
1. The application for appeal be dismissed and the orders of the original tribunal confirmed.