Re Burton;

The case before the court was an application for a review order made by Burton under section 36 of the Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA). Burton sought to challenge the jurisdiction of the Magistrate and the Magistrate's determination of whether there existed a residential tenancy agreement between the parties. The dispute centred around the interpretation and application of the Residential Tenancies Act 1987 (WA) and the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA) in relation to a lease of common property. The court was required to decide whether the Magistrate had jurisdiction under section 71 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1987 (WA), whether a tenancy for a fixed term existed on the facts as found by the Magistrate, and whether the strata company had the statutory power of agency under section 19 of the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA) to validly lease common property on behalf of the proprietors.

The court considered the applicable statutory provisions and the evidence presented to determine whether the Magistrate had jurisdiction and correctly interpreted the law. The court found that the Magistrate did indeed have jurisdiction under section 71 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1987 (WA) to determine the existence of a residential tenancy agreement. The court also found that there was a tenancy for a fixed term on the facts as found by the Magistrate. In relation to the statutory power of agency, the court concluded that the strata company did not have the statutory power of agency under section 19 of the Strata Titles Act 1985 (WA) to validly lease common property on behalf of the proprietors. The court held that there was no residential tenancy agreement between the parties, and consequently, no notice was given pursuant to section 64 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1987 (WA).

Ultimately, the court dismissed Burton's application for a review order, finding that the Magistrate's determination was correct and that the Magistrate had jurisdiction to make the orders that were made. The court found that the Magistrate did not err in law or in fact, and that the decision was not unreasonable. The court further found that the statutory power of agency did not apply in the circumstances of this case, and that there was no residential tenancy agreement between the parties.