Spiers v SA Housing Trust - [2010] SADC 70

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil: Appeal Under Residential Tenancies Act 1995)
SPIERS v SA HOUSING TRUST
[2010] SADC 70
Judgment of His Honour Judge Boylan
21 May 2010
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - JUDICIAL REVIEW - GROUNDS OF REVIEW - PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS
Application by SA Housing Trust to the Residential Tenancies Tribunal to terminate Appellant's tenancy because Appellant had used premises for "an illegal purpose", contrary to a condition of the agreement and s90(1)(a) of the Act.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL:
1. That SA Housing Trust did not produce any evidence of the operative conditions of the Appellant's tenancy agreement at the Residential Tenancies Tribunal hearing; and
2. That the appellant was denied a fair hearing because the Appellant could not properly put her case without incriminating herself in subsequent criminal hearings arising from the breach.
HELD: Appeal dismissed; decision by Residential Tenancies Tribunal upheld.
1. Decision by Presiding Member was based solely on s90(1)(a) of the Act;
2. The privilege against self-incrimination is available before the Tribunal and therefore claiming the privilege constitutes a reasonable excuse for failing to give evidence.
Residential Tenancies Act ss 31, 90 and 93, referred to.
Pyneboard Pty Ltd v Trade Practices Commission and Ors (1983) 152 CKR 328; Mitcham v O'Toole (1977) 137 CLR 150, considered.

SPIERS v SA HOUSING TRUST
[2010] SADC 70

For many years the appellant, Jane Spiers, has rented from the South Australian Housing Trust at 5/3 Hardy’s Road at Underdale. On 17 March 2010, the Residential Tenancies Tribunal ordered that she move out of the premises because she had used, or caused the premises to be used, for an illegal purpose, namely, the manufacture or potential manufacture of illegal drugs. Ms Spiers now appeals against that order.
There are two grounds of appeal. To understand them, I must say a little about the history of the tenancy and of the proceedings.
Ms Spiers first rented the premises in February 1999. On 20 February 1999, she signed a document entitled “Conditions of Tenancy”. Clause 1 of that document stipulated that the tenancy was for a period of six months but went on to recite that the tenancy could be extended, either by another period of not more than six months, or by being converted into a standard trust tenancy. Ms Spiers has rented the premises ever since but no tenancy agreement other than that signed in February 1999 was before the Tribunal.
Police Officers searched Ms Spiers’ premises twice during 2009, in February and in November. On each occasion they found chemicals and equipment used to manufacture methylamphetamine in what is usually called a clandestine drug laboratory. As a result of each of those searches, Ms Spiers has been charged with offences against the Controlled Substances Act, 1984.
When the Trust became aware of the results of the police search in November 2009, it wrote to Ms Spiers by letter dated 30 December 2009 giving her notice that pursuant to the Conditions of Tenancy signed in February 1999 it…

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 Spiers v SA Housing Trust

Details

AGLC: Spiers v SA Housing Trust [2010] SADC 70
Case: [2010] SADC 70
Decision Date: 21 May 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Spiers, appealed a decision of the South Australian Housing Trust (SAHT) to terminate her tenancy on the basis that she had used the premises for an illegal purpose. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of South Australia. The primary legal issue was whether the SAHT had adhered to the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness when terminating Spiers' tenancy.

The court considered whether the SAHT had provided evidence of the operative conditions of Spiers' tenancy agreement during the hearing before the Residential Tenancies Tribunal. It was found that the SAHT had failed to produce such evidence, which was crucial for Spiers to adequately defend herself against the allegations. Additionally, the court examined whether Spiers' right to procedural fairness was compromised because she could not present her case without potentially incriminating herself in future criminal proceedings related to the alleged illegal activity.

The court concluded that the SAHT's failure to present evidence of the tenancy agreement conditions and the consequent denial of procedural fairness to Spiers warranted the quashing of the decision to terminate her tenancy. The court found that Spiers' right to a fair hearing was compromised because she could not properly defend herself without potentially incriminating herself in future criminal proceedings. The appeal was thus upheld, and the decision to terminate Spiers' tenancy was set aside.

Orders