Watkins v Commonwealth of Australia (as Represented by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development)

The High Court of Australia considered an application by Ms. Watkins for a stay of execution of judgment, or an interim injunction, pending the determination of her application for special leave to appeal. This application sought to prevent the Commonwealth of Australia, represented by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, from enforcing orders that terminated Ms. Watkins' residential tenancy agreement for a property at Badgerys Creek, New South Wales. The property had been acquired by the Commonwealth for the construction of Sydney's second major airport. The application was heard by a single Justice of the High Court.

The legal issues before the Court were whether there was a substantial prospect of special leave to appeal being granted, whether Ms. Watkins had sought a stay from the lower courts, the potential loss to the Commonwealth if a stay were granted, and where the balance of convenience lay. Specifically, the Court had to consider the merits of Ms. Watkins' amended proposed grounds of appeal, which challenged the constitutional validity of legislation and regulations that conferred jurisdiction on the Federal Circuit Court to deal with residential tenancy disputes on Commonwealth land, and whether the termination notice was validly issued. The Court also considered the impact of a recent order extending the time for the Commonwealth to apply for a warrant of possession.

The Court reasoned that Ms. Watkins' prospects of obtaining special leave to appeal were not substantial. Her amended grounds of appeal, particularly those concerning the separation of powers and the validity of the legislative framework, were considered to be in substance the same as those raised in related proceedings (the Odzic proceedings) where a similar application for a stay had been refused on the grounds that the proposed appeals were unlikely to attract special leave. Furthermore, the Court found that the balance of convenience did not favour granting a stay. While acknowledging the personal hardship Ms. Watkins and her son might face, the Court noted that she had been aware of the airport development for nine years, the tenancy agreement contained a clause allowing termination for development purposes, and she had been given ample notice to vacate. The Court also highlighted that Ms. Watkins had continued to occupy the premises in contravention of court orders and had not paid rent since October 2016, causing delays and expenses for the airport project, and that she was the last remaining residential occupant on the land designated for the airport.

Ultimately, the High Court dismissed Ms. Watkins' application for a stay of execution, finding that neither the prospects of success on appeal nor the balance of convenience warranted the grant of a stay. The application was dismissed with costs.