Sonia Jones v Commissioner for Housing

These are two appeals from decisions of the Residential Tenancies Tribunal arising from disputes between Ms Jones and the Commissioner for Housing. The first appeal (SCA 7 of 2000) is an appeal against a decision of the Residential Tenancies Tribunal of 13 March 2000 not to grant compensation to Ms Jones. Ms Jones had made application to the Tribunal on 15 February 2000 for compensation she claimed in respect of expenses she had incurred due, she says, to the poor state of the premises at 39 Owen Crescent, Lyneham which she was then leasing from the respondent. The delay in getting this matter on for hearing is in no way Ms Jones’ fault. Ms Jones made an application in April 2002 to extend time to appeal against the decision, and in the hearing of that application made reference to her original appeal. A search was conducted, and the original appeal was located. The second appeal (SCA 64 of 2002) is an appeal against a decision of the Residential Tenancies Tribunal of 2 October 2002 denying Ms Jones a stay of eviction and confirming an eviction order in respect of premises situated at 9A Coree Place, Palmerston. The two matters were heard together, and it is appropriate that I deal with both matters in these reasons.

The court found that the legislative intent was that appeals from the Residential Tenancies Tribunal to this Court are to be limited to appeals on a point of law, and that a general merits review is not available. The court held that the legislative intent that the Supreme Court should be limited to reviewing decisions of the Residential Tenancies Tribunal to reviews on a point of law must be given effect. The court found that the Tribunal's conclusion was open to it on the evidence, and disclosed no error of law. The court further held that the Tribunal exercises a broad discretion, and in the past has allowed Ms Jones to continue to live in these premises even though breaches have been found. In the decision subject to this appeal the Tribunal has determined that it should no longer extend this leniency, and has granted possession to the Commissioner for Housing. In so doing it noted that the relationship between the parties was “one of hostility on the part of the Respondent/Tenant”, and that “the patience of ACT Housing staff in dealing with this particular client should be noted”. The court found that no error of law appears in the decision of the Tribunal not to allow in its discretion further leniency in a case where the evidence established a pattern of repeated failure to make timely rental payments.

The court ordered that: 1. In matter No SCA 7 of 2000, the appeal be dismissed. 2. In matter No SCA 64 of 2002, the appeal be dismissed. 3. The parties have liberty to apply on costs.