NASSAR AND COMMISSIONER FOR HOUSING - [2006] ACTAAT 29

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

CITATION:NASSAR AND COMMISSIONER FOR HOUSING [2006] ACTAAT 29 (29 SEPTEMBER 2006)
AT06/30
Catchwords: Housing assistance – serious and chronic health issue – whether housing needs were exceptional, urgent and critical.
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1989, s 27
Housing Assistance Act 1987, s 12

Commissioner for Housing v Bill Ganas [2003] ACTSC 34 (16 May 2003)
Re Smith and Defence Force Retirement & Death Benefits Authority (1978) 1 ALD 374

Tribunal:Mr M H Peedom, President
Date:29 September 2006

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ) NO: AT06/30
GENERAL DIVISION )

RE:      TAMARA NASSAR
Applicant
AND:   COMMISSIONER FOR
  HOUSING
Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal : Mr M H Peedom, President

Date : 29 September 2006

Decision : The decision under review is affirmed.

…………………………..
President

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ) NO: AT06/30
GENERAL DIVISION )

RE:      TAMARA NASSAR
Applicant
AND:   COMMISSIONER FOR
  HOUSING
Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION

29 September 2006 Mr M H Peedom, President

The decision under review

The applicant in this case has applied for the review of a decision made by the respondent on 19 October 2004 to refuse an application made by the applicant for priority transfer from three bedroom accommodation, which she and her family presently occupy as tenants of the respondent, to four bedroom accommodation. The respondent subsequently agreed to place the applicant on a standard transfer list to four bedroom accommodation but maintained the refusal to approve priority transfer. The applicant seeks the review of that refusal.

2. The decision under review was made pursuant to the provisions of the Housing Assistance Public Rental Housing Assistance Program Approval 1989 (repealed) (“the 1989 Program”), a housing assistance program for which provision was made by section 12(1) of the Housing Assistance Act 1987. Clause 24(1) of the 1989 Program provided for an appeal to the Tribunal against such a decision.

3. The applicant’s application for review of decision was lodged with the Tribunal on 7 April 2006, outside the time within which an appeal is required to be lodged by section 27 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1989 (“the AAT Act”). An application was made by the applicant pursuant to section 27(8) of the AAT Act for the time for lodging the appeal to be extended. That application was opposed by the respondent on the ground that a period of 19 months had elapsed since the making of the decision, because the applicant had made a further application for assistance under the 1989 Program, albeit unsuccessfully, and because her circumstances may have changed since making her application for assistance under the 1989 Program.

4. The hearing of the applicant’s application for an extension of time fixed for 1 June 2006 was adjourned due to the illness of one of the applicant’s children, her husband’s absence from Canberra due to work commitments, her lack of other support and her inability to lodge with the Tribunal, in accordance with its directions, material to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read NASSAR AND COMMISSIONER FOR HOUSING and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2006] ACTAAT 29
Decision Date: 29 September 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved Nassar, an individual seeking housing assistance, and the Commissioner for Housing. Nassar contended that his housing needs were exceptional, urgent, and critical due to serious and chronic health issues. The court was tasked with determining whether these circumstances warranted a special consideration under housing assistance provisions. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The legal issues at hand centred on the interpretation and application of the criteria for exceptional, urgent, and critical housing needs within the housing assistance framework. Specifically, the court had to assess whether Nassar's health condition met the stringent requirements set out by legislation and relevant policy guidelines. This involved an analysis of the evidence provided by Nassar regarding his health status and how it impacted his ability to secure and maintain suitable housing.

In delivering the judgment, the court meticulously examined the evidence presented by Nassar, focusing on the nature and severity of his health issues. The court found that while Nassar's health conditions were indeed serious and chronic, they did not meet the threshold of being exceptional, urgent, and critical as defined by the applicable statutes and guidelines. Consequently, the court ruled that the circumstances did not warrant special consideration for housing assistance. The decision underscored the importance of stringent criteria in determining eligibility for housing assistance to ensure resources are allocated effectively to those with the most pressing needs.

The court's decision was final, and Nassar's application for housing assistance was dismissed. The ruling clarified the interpretation of the criteria for exceptional housing needs, providing guidance for future applicants and the Commissioner in similar cases.

Orders