Australia, Sept. 6 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on Aug. 6:

1. JAM Super Property Holdings Pty Ltd (JAM) is the owner of premises in Maitland NSW (Premises). In 2020 JAM leased the Premises to a company in the group of companies of which SPL Living Pty Ltd (SPL) is a member. JAM's claim, disputed by SPL but accepted by the Tribunal at first instance, was that it leased the premises to SPL.

2. The reason why the identity of the lessee is open to question is because no written lease agreement relating to the Premises was tendered in evidence to the Tribunal. It is not clear if there ever was a written lease agreement.

3. On 19 January 2024 JAM commenced an application in the Tribunal against SPL under the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 NSW (RTA) seeking a termination order, an order for possession of the Premises and a money order for outstanding rent.

4. By no later than 3 April 2024 (the date is also in dispute) JAM obtained vacant possession of the premises. SPL brings this appeal against an order made by the Tribunal on 20 September 2024 for SPL to pay $15,000 to JAM for outstanding rent.

Tribunal proceedings and decision

5. A preliminary issue in the proceedings relating to jurisdiction was determined by the Tribunal at a hearing on 19 June 2024. At the time of this hearing SPL did not dispute that it was the tenant of the Premises. However it contended that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction in relation to the residential tenancy agreement because of clause 26 of the Residential Tenancies Regulation 2019 (RTR).Clause 26 relevantly provides, in essence, that a residential tenancy agreement is exempt from the operation of the RTA if the premises are not used as a residence by the tenant and the premises are used to provide disability accommodation.

6. On 19 June 2024 the Tribunal held that clause 26 of the RTR did not apply and that accordingly the Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine the dispute.

7. In the course of reaching that conclusion the Tribunal Member stated at [2] that "I am satisfied that there is a residential tenancy agreement between the parties". That was not a surprising finding given that Mr Mason, who gave evidence on behalf of SPL, had provided two statements including a statement dated 14 June 2024 asserting that SPL was the tenant of the Premises and had sub-leased the Premises to various sub-tenants.

8. After the hearing on 19 June 2024 Mr Mason made a further statement dated 25 July 2024. In this statement he said that whilst he had understood that SPL was the tenant of the Premises when he had prepared his earlier statements, he now believed that SPL was not the tenant. In his 25 July 2024 statement Mr Mason said that he believed that the tenant was a related company, Sanctuary Place Pty Ltd.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/19877eb08c6cd1645adbd9e2

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.