Legal Research
Cases
Schaffer v Usca

Schaffer v Usca

Case [2016] SADC 61 16 June 2016

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil: Appeal Under Residential Tenancies Act 1995)
SCHAFFER v USCA
[2016] SADC 61
Judgment of His Honour Judge Millsteed
16 June 2016
LANDLORD AND TENANT - RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES LEGISLATION
Order made by the Residential Tenancies Tribunal that the Applicant pay the Respondent compensation pursuant to s 110(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1995 (RTA) - application for an extension of time in which to appeal against the order pursuant to s 41 of the RTA - Tribunal's power to make order dependent on the existence of a residential tenancy agreement between the parties as defined in s 3 of the RTA - whether provision of maintenance of the property and the payment of water bills by the Respondent satisfied the requirement of rent - application for extension of time refused on the grounds of unsatisfactory delay in the filing of Notice of Appeal - finding that the appeal would have been dismissed if application had been granted because the payment of water rates, though not the provision of maintenance, constituted rent.
Residential Tenancies Act 1995 s 110(1)(c), referred to.
Spurway v The Police [2011] SASC 177; Beaton v McDevitt (1987) 13 NSWLR 162, considered.

SCHAFFER v USCA
[2016] SADC 61
Introduction

This is an application for an extension of time in which to appeal against an order made by the Residential Tenancies Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) that the Applicant, Julius Schaffer, pay the Respondent, Aurel Usca, compensation in the amount of $10,000 pursuant to s 110(1)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1995 (‘RTA’).[1] The grounds of appeal assert that the Applicant and the Respondent were not parties to ‘a residential tenancy agreement’ under which rent was payable and, accordingly, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction power to make the compensation order.
[1] The references to the RTA in the judgment relate to the applicable provisions at the time of the relevant events.
Background
The following summary is derived from the Tribunal’s factual findings in its written reasons for decision published on 16 December 2013. The Applicant does not challenge those factual findings. The Applicant’s jurisdictional argument is based solely on an application of law to the Tribunal’s factual findings.
On or about 15 May 1996 the Respondent commenced occupation of the Applicant’s property at Lot 102, 16 Hayward Drive, Glen Osmond (‘the property’). The Applicant lived at Henley Beach. The Respondent lived in a shed on the property and stored various items of personal property in other sheds. Other structures on the property included a caravan and a shipping container which were not used by the Respondent.
The Respondent occupied the property until 8 September 2013 when police attended, at the Applicant’s request. The police purported to exercise their powers under s 17A of the Summary Offences Act 1953 and directed the Respondent to leave the property on the grounds that he was a trespasser. The Respondent complied with the direction but returned to the property the following day and resumed his occupation of…

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 Schaffer v Usca

Details

AGLC: Schaffer v Usca [2016] SADC 61
Case: [2016] SADC 61
Decision Date: 16 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Schaffer v Usca involved a dispute between the Applicant, who sought to appeal a decision of the Residential Tenancies Tribunal, and the Respondent, who was ordered to pay compensation to the Applicant. The decision was made under the Residential Tenancies Act 1995, which governs the rights and obligations of landlords and tenants in Australia. The central issue was whether the provision of maintenance of the property and the payment of water bills by the Respondent constituted rent, and thus if the Tribunal had the authority to order compensation.

The legal issue before the court was the interpretation of the term "rent" as defined in section 3 of the RTA. The Applicant argued that the maintenance and water bills should be considered as rent, thereby making the Tribunal's order valid. The Respondent contended that these services did not qualify as rent, and thus the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to order compensation. Additionally, the Applicant sought an extension of time to file the Notice of Appeal, which was denied due to the considerable delay in filing.

The court held that while the payment of water rates constituted rent, the provision of maintenance did not. Consequently, the Tribunal's order was justified in part but not in full. The court also refused the extension of time for the appeal, citing the unreasonable delay in filing the Notice of Appeal. The court concluded that even if the extension had been granted, the appeal would have been dismissed because the water rates constituted rent. The court ultimately upheld the Tribunal's authority to make the compensation order based on the payment of water rates.

Orders