Legal Research
Cases
Noble v Centacare

Noble v Centacare

Case [2003] ACTSC 37 16 May 2003

Type to search within this case.

JOHN NOBLE v CENTACARE [2003] ACTSC 37 (16 May 2003)

LEASES AND TENANCIES – resident of hostel for people in need of assistance – whether party to ”residential tenancy agreement” for purposes of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (ACT) –whether boarder or lodger.

Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (ACT), ss 3, 5, 7, 10, 120, 121
Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), s 33
Legislation Act 2001 (ACT), s 6(1), s 180
Supreme Court Act 1933, s 20
Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988, s 48A

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj (2002) 187 ALR 117
Torrissi v Oliver [1951] VLR 380
Noblett and Mansfield v Manley [1952] SASR 155
Street v Mountford [1985] 2 All ER 289
Lewis v Bell [1985] 1 NSWLR 731
Bruton v London and Quadrant Housing Trust [2000] 1 AC 406
Radaich v Smith & Anor (1959) 101 CLR 209
Kelly v Apps (2000) 98 FCR 101
Commissioner for Housing v Ganas, [2003] ACTSC 34 (16 May 2003)
Aslan v Murphy [1990] 1 WLR 766
Sam Agresta v Francesco Agresta & Anor [2002] VSCA 23
Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd v Wraith (1983) 48 ALR 500
Our Town FM Pty Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (1987) 16 FCR
De Domenico v Marshall (1999) 94 FCR 97
Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR
Fry v McGufficke (unreported) [1998] SCACT 20 (18 March 1998)

APPEAL FROM THE RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES TRIBUNAL

No SCA 65 of 2002

Judge: Crispin J
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date: 16 May 2003

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )
  )          No. SCA 65 of 2002
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )

BETWEEN: JOHN NOBLE
Appellant

AND: CENTACARE
Respondent

ORDER

Judge:  Crispin J
Date:  16 May 2003
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The appeal be dismissed.

This is an appeal against a decision of the Residential Tenancies Tribunal refusing to hear a claim for compensation for wrongful eviction from a room at Ainslie Village said to have been the subject of a residential tenancy agreement.

For the sake of consistency with the Tribunal’s judgment and the pleadings, I will continue to refer to “the respondent” in the singular, though “Centacare” is apparently not a body corporate but a business name employed by the Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Archdiocese of Canberra and Goulburn.

The claim was based upon the contention that, following a dispute with the respondent about complaints concerning his conduct, the appellant had been given a choice of retaining occupancy of his present room in Ainslie Village, but with a constant risk of eviction on 24 hours notice if further complaints about him were received, or moving to another room in the village without a separate bathroom. He had elected to move to the other room, but claimed that the ultimatum with which he had been presented amounted to a wrongful eviction from the room he had formerly occupied. He sought the sum of $1,000 in compensation.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had…

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.

Continue reading Noble v Centacare

Details

AGLC: Noble v Centacare [2003] ACTSC 37
Case: [2003] ACTSC 37
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Noble v Centacare [2003] ACTSC 37 concerns an appeal against a decision of the Residential Tenancies Tribunal. The appellant, John Noble, sought compensation for what he claimed was a wrongful eviction from his room at Ainslie Village, an ACT Housing facility. The respondent, Centacare, operates Ainslie Village for the Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Archdiocese of Canberra and Goulburn. The appeal was brought under s 126 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (ACT). The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Tribunal erred in concluding that the appellant was a boarder or lodger rather than a tenant, which would exclude the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under s 5(d) of the Act.

The Court found that the Tribunal was not functus officio in issuing a written statement of reasons after delivering an oral judgment, and that the written statement should be treated as an edited version of the oral reasons. The Court examined the evidence to determine whether the appellant had a right to exclusive possession of his room, which would classify him as a tenant rather than a boarder or lodger. The Court concluded that the Tribunal’s finding was supported by the evidence, as the agreement between the parties, including the village rules, did not provide for exclusive possession. The Court also rejected the appellant’s argument that the Tribunal failed to provide sufficient reasons for its decision, noting the limited evidence available.

The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal’s decision that it had no jurisdiction to hear the appellant’s claim for compensation.

Orders