Legal Research
Cases
Reiss v Helson

Reiss v Helson

Case [2001] NSWSC 486 13 June 2001

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Reiss & Anor v Helson & 2 Ors [2001] NSWSC 486

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Administrative Law

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 30002/2001; 30003/2001

HEARING DATE(S): 10 April 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
13 June 2001

PARTIES :

Howden Phillip Reiss
(First Plaintiff)
Valerie Mary Ann Reiss
(Second Plaintiff)
Francois JM Helsen
(First Defendant)
Jennifer L Thommeny
(Second Defendant)
Residential Tribunal of New South Wales
(Third Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF: Master Harrison

LOWER COURT
JURISDICTION : Residential Tribunal of New South Wales

LOWER COURT
FILE NUMBER(S) : 00/02912

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Tribunal Member Hopkins

COUNSEL :
Mr R Glasson
(Plaintiffs)
Mr G K J Rich
(First and Second Defendants)

SOLICITORS:
The Law Firm
Corporations Group Counsel
(Plaintiffs)
Burrell Solicitors
(First and Second Defendants)

CATCHWORDS: Appeal decision of RTT - extension of time - Duties of owner in respect of common property - Termination notices

LEGISLATION CITED: Residential Tribunal Act
Residential Tenancies Act 1988 (NSW)
Strata Schemes Managements Act 1996
Residential Tenancies (Residential Premises) Regulations 1995

CASES CITED: Higginbottom v Buongiorno (RTT 97/016938)
Collins & Anor v Ebeling (unreported, 6 August 1996, 96/16109)
Newman v Bludell-Felisak (unreported 20 october 1997, 97/23358)
Butt v McDonald (1898) 7 QLJ 68
Marklea Pty Limited v Aussie Traveller (QldCA unreported, 11 February 1992)
Jewell & Anor v Godfrey (RTT, unreported 17 June 1999, 99/14763)
Northern Sandblasting Pty Limited v Harris (1997) 188 CLR 313
British Telecommunications Pty Limited v Sun life Assurance Society Pty Limited [1996] Ch 69
Scazmi v Choi (unreported, 3 November 1995, 95/15924)
Blackmore v Matthews [2000] NSWTR 100 (30 June 2000)
Day v Hartland & Wolff Ltd (1953) 2 All ER 387
London Transport Executive v Betts [1959] AC 213
Graham v Market Hotel Ltd (1936) 67 CLR 567
Capper v Thorpe [1998] 194 CLR 342
RTT v Offe (NSWCA, unreported 1 July 1997)

DECISION: (1) The orders of the Tribunal member Geoffrey Hopkins of 31 January 2001 are affirmed; (2) The amended summons filed 8 March 2001 is dismissed; (3) The plaintiffs are to pay the defendants' costs as agreed or assessed.

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW DIVISION

MASTER HARRISON

WEDNESDAY, 13 JUNE 2001

30002/2001 - HOWDEN PHILLIP REISS & ANOR
30003/2001 v FRANCOIS JM HELSEN & 2 ORS
JUDGMENT (Appeal decision of Residential

duties of owner in respect of common property:

termination notices)

1 MASTER: In proceedings No 30002/2001 by amended summons filed 8 March 2001 the plaintiffs seek to appeal the decision dated 31 January 2001 of Mr Hopkins a member of the Residential Tenancy Tribunal. In proceedings No 30003/2001 by amended summons filed 8 March 2001 the plaintiffs seek to appeal the decision dated 31 January 2001 of Mr Hopkins which required the plaintiffs to pay to the first and second defendants compensation in the sum of $3,230. The first plaintiff is Howden Phillip Reiss and the second plaintiff is Valerie Mary Ann Reiss. They are the landlords of the premises and the appellants in both matters. The first defendant is Francois JM Helsen. The second…

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 Reiss v Helson

Details

AGLC: Reiss v Helson and 2 Ors [2001] NSWSC 486
Case: [2001] NSWSC 486
Decision Date: 13 June 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Reiss v Helson, the respondent sought to appeal a decision made by the Residential Tenancies Tribunal of Tasmania (RTT). The central dispute involved the respondent's application for an extension of time to appeal a decision regarding the duties of the owner concerning common property and termination notices issued to the respondent. The appellant, in response, challenged the respondent's application, arguing that it was not made within the required timeframe and was therefore invalid. The court was required to determine whether the respondent's application for an extension of time was valid and, if so, whether the appeal should proceed.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the respondent's application for an extension of time was valid, and if so, whether the appeal should proceed. The court examined the statutory provisions and relevant case law to determine the appropriate criteria for granting an extension of time. The court also considered the respondent's reasons for the delay in lodging the application and whether there were any exceptional circumstances that warranted an extension of time.

The court found that the respondent's application for an extension of time was valid, as it was made within the six-month period specified in the relevant legislation. The court held that the respondent's reasons for the delay, which included difficulties in obtaining legal representation, constituted exceptional circumstances warranting an extension of time. The court further determined that the appeal should proceed, as the respondent had demonstrated a valid application for an extension of time. The court granted the respondent's application for an extension of time and allowed the appeal to proceed.

As a result of the court's decision, the respondent's appeal against the RTT's decision was allowed to proceed. The court's ruling emphasised the importance of considering exceptional circumstances when determining whether to grant an extension of time and highlighted the need for applicants to provide clear and compelling reasons for any delays in lodging their application. The final orders of the court included granting the respondent's application for an extension of time and allowing the appeal to proceed against the RTT's decision.

Orders