Rocks v Southside Village

Case [2018] ACAT 40

ACT CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL



ROCKS v SOUTHSIDE VILLAGE (Residential Tenancies) [2018] ACAT 40

RT 76/2018

Catchwords:              RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES - site agreements in caravan parks as occupancy agreements – site agreements as contractual licences at common law – the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in relation to site agreements – improvements to caravan sites

Legislation cited:        ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2008 ss 6, 16, 17

Residential Tenancies Act 1997 ss 6A, 6F, 71C

Cases cited:Bowles v Preston [2009] NSWCTTT 655

Bruton v London and Quadrant HousingTrust (1999) 2 All ER 481
Christian Family Centre v Eakin (2005) NSWCTTT 105
Han v Seow [2004] NSWCTTT 440
Hasenauer v Korzeniowski (1991) NSWRT 176
KJRR P/L v Commissioner of State Revenue [1999] VSCA 2
May v Ceedive Pty Ltd [2006] NSWCA 369
Mazzoni v Elevra Private Hotel (2005) NSWCTTT 379
Roberts v South Canberra Holding Pty Ltd Trading as Southside Village [2017] ACAT 88
Tabcorp Pty Ltd v Bowen Investments Pty Ltd [2009] HCA 8
VBI Properties Pty Ltd v VCAT & Anor [2001] VSC 22
Wiser v Havelock Housing Association Inc [2014] ACTSC 138
Zeus & Ra Pty Ltd v Nicolaou & Anor [2002] VCAT 1041

Texts/Papers cited:     Anforth, Christensen and Adkins, Residential Tenancies Law and Practice in NSW (Federation Press, 7th Ed, 2017)

Tribunal:                   Senior Member A Anforth

Date of Orders:  11 April 2018

Date of Reasons for Decision:         11 April 2018

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY  )

CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL       )          RT 76/2018

BETWEEN:

PHILLIP WILLIAM ROCKS

Applicant

AND:

SOUTHSIDE VILLAGE

Respondent

TRIBUNAL:   Senior Member A Anforth

DATE:11 April 2018

ORDER

The Tribunal orders that:

1.The Residential Tenancies Act 1997 does not apply to the dispute concerning the caravan and the application is dismissed.

NOTE:

The Tribunal may have jurisdiction over the dispute by virtue of sections 16 and 17 ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 depending on the amount claimed.

2.The applicant is to file a civil dispute application outlining the amount claimed and how that amount was determined.

………………………………..

Senior Member A Anforth

REASONS FOR DECISION

1.The case concerns a dispute between a former resident of the caravan park at Southside Village in Canberra, Philip William Rocks (the applicant), and the manager of the park, Karen Hutcheson who is also the director of South Canberra Holdings Pty Ltd Trading as Southside Village (the respondent/owner).

2.The application was filed in the Tribunal on 25 January 2018 and came on for hearing on 27 February 2018. The matter was commenced as a dispute under the Residential Tenancy Act 1997. The respondent raised an objection to jurisdiction on the basis that the Residential Tenancy Act 1997 (the RT Act) did not apply to the dispute.

3.The Tribunal was called upon to determine the preliminary jurisdiction issue and to that end some evidence was taken from the parties. The facts required for determining the jurisdiction issue were not contested. The facts concerning the dispute itself were contested and have not been the subject…

Continue reading Rocks v Southside Village

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Rocks v Southside Village (Residential Tenancies) [2018] ACAT 40
Case
[2018] ACAT 40
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rocks v Southside Village involved a dispute over a caravan situated on a property managed by Southside Village. Rocks, the applicant, sought to have the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 apply to the situation and for an order to vacate the property. Southside Village, the respondent, contested the application, arguing that the Act did not apply to the circumstances of the case. The matter was heard by the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 applied to the dispute concerning the caravan. This involved interpreting the Act and determining the nature of the relationship between the parties. Specifically, the Tribunal needed to decide if the relationship between Rocks and Southside Village constituted a tenancy, as defined by the Act, and if the property in question was a premises subject to the Act. The respondent also raised the possibility that the Tribunal may have jurisdiction over the dispute under sections 16 and 17 of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008, contingent on the amount claimed by the applicant.

The Tribunal found that the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 did not apply to the dispute. The relationship between the parties was not one of a tenancy as defined by the Act, and the property did not constitute a premises subject to the Act. The Tribunal further noted that if the applicant wished to pursue a claim, they would need to file a civil dispute application, outlining the amount claimed and how that amount was determined. The Tribunal suggested that it may have jurisdiction over the dispute depending on the amount claimed, under sections 16 and 17 of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application and directed the applicant to file a civil dispute application if they wished to proceed with their claim.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal orders that:

1. The Residential Tenancies Act 1997 does not apply to the dispute concerning the caravan and the application is dismissed.

NOTE:

The Tribunal may have jurisdiction over the dispute by virtue of sections 16 and 17 ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 depending on the amount claimed.

2. The applicant is to file a civil dispute application outlining the amount claimed and how that amount was determined.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.