The Commissioner for Social Housing in the Act v Norman Faull
Case
•
[2008] ACTRTT 20
•12 October 2008
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
The Commissioner for Social Housing in the Act v Norman Faull [2008] ACTRTT 20
[2008] ACTRTT 20
12 October 2008
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Commissioner for Social Housing in the ACT initiated proceedings against Norman Faull, the tenant, seeking the termination of his residential tenancy at 13/5 Cerutty Crescent, Gordon, ACT. The Commissioner alleged that Faull had engaged in conduct that seriously interfered with the quiet enjoyment of the premises, specifically by causing disturbances to other residents, including playing loud music, engaging in aggressive and abusive behaviour, and creating a nuisance. The case was heard in the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Faull's conduct constituted a serious or continuous interference with the quiet enjoyment of the premises, thereby warranting termination of his tenancy. The Tribunal considered the relevant statutory provisions under the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (ACT), which allow for the termination of a tenancy on the grounds of interference with the quiet enjoyment of other residents. The Tribunal also examined the evidence presented regarding the nature and frequency of Faull's disruptive behaviour, as well as the impact of this behaviour on other residents.
The Tribunal found that Faull's conduct did indeed amount to a serious interference with the quiet enjoyment of the premises. The evidence demonstrated a pattern of disruptive behaviour that significantly impacted the other residents' ability to enjoy their living environment peacefully. The Tribunal concluded that the interference was both serious and continuous, justifying the termination of Faull's tenancy. Consequently, the Tribunal ordered that the tenancy terminate at 10am on 13 October 2008, with Faull required to vacate the premises and grant vacant possession by 4pm on 14 October 2008. In the event of non-compliance, the Registrar was directed to issue a warrant of eviction, with the need for service of the warrant dispensed.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Faull's conduct constituted a serious or continuous interference with the quiet enjoyment of the premises, thereby warranting termination of his tenancy. The Tribunal considered the relevant statutory provisions under the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (ACT), which allow for the termination of a tenancy on the grounds of interference with the quiet enjoyment of other residents. The Tribunal also examined the evidence presented regarding the nature and frequency of Faull's disruptive behaviour, as well as the impact of this behaviour on other residents.
The Tribunal found that Faull's conduct did indeed amount to a serious interference with the quiet enjoyment of the premises. The evidence demonstrated a pattern of disruptive behaviour that significantly impacted the other residents' ability to enjoy their living environment peacefully. The Tribunal concluded that the interference was both serious and continuous, justifying the termination of Faull's tenancy. Consequently, the Tribunal ordered that the tenancy terminate at 10am on 13 October 2008, with Faull required to vacate the premises and grant vacant possession by 4pm on 14 October 2008. In the event of non-compliance, the Registrar was directed to issue a warrant of eviction, with the need for service of the warrant dispensed.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Property Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Trespass
-
Injunction
-
Specific Performance
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Shkolar v Thomson (Residential Tenancies) [2015] ACAT 21
Cases Citing This Decision
6
Shkolar v Thomson (Residential Tenancies)
[2015] ACAT 21
Commissioner for Social Housing in the ACT & Canham
[2012] ACAT 41
Williams v CEO Housing
[2013] NTSC 28
Cases Cited
5
Statutory Material Cited
1
Briginshaw v Briginshaw
[1938] HCA 34
Briginshaw v Briginshaw
[1938] HCA 34
Hawkesbury Nominees Pty Ltd v Battik Pty Ltd
[2000] FCA 185