Shindy & Anor v Antcliff & Anor (Residential Tenancies)

Shindy & Anor v Antcliff & Anor was a matter before the tribunal concerning an application to approve lessors' refusal of tenants' application to keep a dog in a newly built house. The lessors, Shindy and another, argued that the tenants' request to keep a dog was contrary to their genuine religious beliefs, which consider a dog to be an unclean animal, haram (forbidden by Islamic law) and not suitable for living inside a house. The lessors had built the house with the intention of residing in it permanently. The tribunal was tasked with determining whether the lessors would suffer significant hardship if the tenants were allowed to keep a dog and whether it was appropriate to order the lessors to consent to the tenants' application under specific conditions.

The primary legal issue before the tribunal was whether the lessors' refusal to allow the tenants to keep a dog was justified based on their religious beliefs and whether it constituted a significant hardship for the lessors. The tribunal also needed to consider whether the lessors' religious beliefs were a valid reason to deny the tenants' application. The tribunal examined the balance between the tenants' rights to keep a pet and the lessors' right to maintain a home environment that aligns with their religious beliefs.

In its decision, the tribunal found that the lessors' refusal to permit the tenants to keep a dog was grounded in their genuine religious beliefs and that allowing the dog would result in significant hardship for the lessors. The tribunal considered the lessors' intention to live in the house permanently and their religious beliefs that prohibit the presence of a dog in the home. The tribunal concluded that it was appropriate to approve the lessors' application and not order them to consent to the tenants' application on stated conditions.

The tribunal's final order was that the lessors' application dated 26 July 2023 was approved. The tribunal upheld the lessors' refusal to allow the tenants to keep a dog in the house, considering the significant hardship it would cause them due to their religious beliefs. This decision reflects the importance of respecting the religious beliefs of property owners while balancing the rights of tenants.