Livas v Young House Pty Ltd [2008] ACTSC 29 (1 April 2008)

Last Updated: 7 May 2008

AKIS LIVAS v YOUNG HOUSE PTY LTD

[2008] ACTSC 29 (1 APRIL 2008)

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

No. SCA 26 of 2008

Judge: Refshauge J

Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 1 April 2008

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE )

) No. SCA 26 of 2008*

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )

BETWEEN: AKIS LIVAS

Applicant

AND: YOUNG HOUSE PTY LTD

Defendant

ORDER

Judge: Refshauge J

Date: 1 April 2008

Place: Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.

2. The order of the Residential Tenancies Tribunal for eviction of the applicant from 35/20 Moore Street, Turner be stayed until the end of Monday 7 April 2008.

1. This is an application for leave to appeal against the decision of the Residential Tenancies Tribunal made to evict Mr Livas from premises at 35/20 Moore Street, Turner. From the submissions by Mr Livas, it appears that he was not able to attend the hearing of the Tribunal because of his work commitments interstate and he arranged for a representative of the Welfare Rights and Legal Centre Ltd to attend on his behalf.

2. He tells me that his understanding was that the solicitor was to get an adjournment and not to appear for him. Ultimately, Mr Young from the respondent, Young House Pty Ltd, appeared before me and informed me that, at the hearing, no application for an adjournment was sought and the case was argued and the eviction order was made.

3. Mr Livas indicated to me that the argument he wished to put to the Tribunal was that there were supporters of his who were interstate but were prepared to fund him for moneys that no doubt included the outstanding rental arrears and other moneys that were due to Young House Pty Ltd. In my view, that is not an argument that is likely to have had any success with the Tribunal other than perhaps to encourage it to delay the execution of any eviction order, to which obviously Young House Pty Ltd was entitled, at least in the view of the Tribunal which issued one.

4. Accordingly, there seems no point in granting leave to appeal as there is really no question of law involved that should detain the Supreme Court. While a non-attendance at a hearing could result in a breach of the rules of natural justice in appropriate circumstances, and would be a question of law that could be agitated before the Supreme Court, this really does not appear to be one of those circumstances and particularly as the argument to be put before the Tribunal is unlikely to be one that would have succeeded. In the circumstances, however, it does seem to me that it may be of some benefit to both parties if there were a short delay in the execution of the eviction order made by the Residential Tenancies Tribunal.

5. Mr Livas has indicated that he has still expectation of receiving moneys that will pay the moneys owning to Young House Pty Ltd and, with the threat of the eviction hanging over his head, that may bear fruit and that would be to the benefit of the respondent. On the other hand, Mr Livas is entitled to some opportunity to understand that, unless he can convince Young House Pty Ltd to re-engage him as a tenant or continue the tenancy, whichever is appropriate, probably the former, then he will have to find alternative accommodation and some reasonable opportunity to do that should be granted to him.

6. Accordingly, I proposed to the parties that I would dismiss the application for leave to appeal, but I would stay the execution of the order of the Residential Tenancies Tribunal for a period of 7 days. After hearing submissions from both parties, I formed the view that those are the appropriate orders that I should make and accordingly I dismiss the application of Mr Livas for leave to appeal against the decision of the Residential Tenancies Tribunal, but I order that the order of the Tribunal that Mr Livas be evicted from 35/20 Moore Street, Turner, in the territory, be stayed until the end of Monday, 7 April 2008.

I certify that the preceding * (*) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour, Justice Refshauge.

Associate:

Date: 1 April 2008

Counsel for the plaintiff: Self represented

Solicitor for the defendant: Self represented

Date of hearing: 1 April 2008

Date of judgment: 1 April 2008