Valve Corporation v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

In this case, the appellants, Mr and Mrs Minici, appealed against a decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (FCCA) that granted the Commonwealth's application for an order terminating a residential tenancy agreement. The court was required to determine whether the FCCA had jurisdiction to make the orders sought by the Commonwealth and whether the Federal Circuit Court (Commonwealth Tenancy Disputes) Instrument 2015 (Cth) was unauthorised and ultra vires. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the predominant use of the premises was for agricultural purposes and if the pre-conditions to the exercise of the FCCA's power under s 94 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) were satisfied.

The court found that the primary judge's reasons for judgment were well-reasoned and did not disclose any error. The court held that the predominant use of the premises was not for agricultural purposes, and therefore, the 2010 RTA applied. The court also found that the FCCA was satisfied that it was appropriate to make a termination order, and the primary judge exercised his discretion correctly. The court rejected the appellants' submissions that the primary judge was required to give separate consideration to the determination of the day on which vacant possession was to be given. The court held that the primary judge was applying s 83 of the 2010 RTA, making an order for possession of the residential premises and specifying the day on which the order was to take effect. The court also found that there was ample power available to the primary judge to make the order for vacant possession in the terms he did.

In summary, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal, as agreed or taxed.