Spellman & Anor v Slattery & Anor (Residential Tenancies)

The case of Spellman & Anor v Slattery & Anor involved a dispute over a residential tenancy agreement in Kaleen, ACT. The applicants, as tenants, had given notice of their intention to terminate the lease, citing a ‘posting clause’ as the basis for their notice. The respondents, as landlords, had argued that the clause did not apply as one of the tenants had voluntarily surrendered her job in the ACT and applied for employment in Melbourne. The hearing focused on the application for termination of the tenancy agreement on the grounds of hardship. The ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal was tasked with deciding whether the tenants would suffer significant hardship if the agreement were to continue, and if the level of hardship warranted terminating the agreement during its fixed term.

The court examined the evidence presented, including the tenants' notice of termination, the landlords' response, the tenants' vacating of the premises, and the financial implications for both parties. The tribunal considered the potential financial, medical, and personal forms of hardship that both the tenants and the landlords might face. The court concluded that the tenancy had already been terminated by the tenants' actions, which constituted a breach of their obligations under the fixed term tenancy agreement. Therefore, the tribunal could not retrospectively terminate the tenancy on the grounds of hardship. However, the tribunal acknowledged that the landlords were likely to suffer considerable financial hardship due to the loss of rental income, and the tenants would face financial hardship in vacating the premises and moving to Melbourne.

The tribunal found that the hardship faced by the tenants did not reach the level of significance required for termination under the Act. Instead, the tribunal considered the matter as a ‘break lease’ and ordered that the tenancy be terminated as of the date of the hearing. The tribunal also ordered that the rental bond be released to the landlords and that the tenants pay a further amount equivalent to eight weeks' rent in fortnightly payments commencing on 19 June 2014. This decision aimed to provide a resolution to the dispute and avoid the need for further legal proceedings.