Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Lekhwar v Singh [2022] NSWCATCD 50 Hearing dates: 25 May 2022 Date of orders: 27 May 2022 Decision date: 27 May 2022 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: M Harrowell, Deputy President Decision: See orders published separately Catchwords: LANDLORD AND TENANT – Right of bankrupt to defend possession proceedings following sequestration order and appointment of trustee. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for adjournment following remittal Legislation Cited: Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cwth) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) Cases Cited: Nathan Elali (a bankrupt) v Mahrs and Anor [2013] NSWSC 1883 National Australia Bank Limited v Strik [2009] NSWSC 184 Singh v Lekhwar [2022] NSWCATAP 158 Texts Cited: Nil Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Keshvanand Lekhwar (First Applicant) Vinita Lekhwar (Second Applicant) Gurjit Singh Singh (First Respondents) Kiranjit Kaur (Second Respondent) Innis Anthony Cull (Third Respondent) Gess Michael Rambaldi (Fourth Respondent) Representation: First and Second Applicants (Self-represented) First and Second Respondents (Self-represented) Third and Fourth Respondents (No appearance) File Number(s): RT 22/21758 Publication restriction: Nil REASONS FOR DECISION 1. This decision relates to a matter remitted to the Tribunal by the Appeal Panel by orders made 16 May 2022 (appeal orders). The Appeal Panel published reasons for decision: Singh v Lekhwar [2022] NSWCATAP 158 (appeal decision). 2. The claim involves an application seeking an order for termination of a residential tenancy agreement pursuant to s 84 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) (RT Act). These proceedings originally bore application number RT 21/32134 (original proceedings). On remittal, the proceedings were assigned a new number, RT 22/21758 (remitted proceedings). 3. These reasons relate to a hearing in the Consumer and Commercial Division on 25 May 2022 of application RT 22/21758 in consequence of the appeal orders, the granting of an adjournment application made by the respondents in respect of the remitted proceedings and the making of directions to facilitate a final hearing. Orders were separately published on 27 May 2022. These are the reasons for making those orders. History 1. In order to understand the reasons why the orders of 27 May 2022 have been made and what are the issues to be determined at the final hearing of the remitted proceedings, it is necessary to set out a brief history of the proceedings. 2. The applicants are the landlords and the first and second respondents, Mr Singh and Ms Kaur (tenants) are tenants under a residential tenancy agreement dated 27 July 2020 (tenancy agreement). The tenancy agreement relates to premises at Kingswood (premises). That agreement was for a fixed term commencing on 27 July 2020 and ending on 26 July 2021. The rent specified in the tenancy agreement was $400 per week. A rental bond of $1600 was payable upon signing the tenancy agreement. 3. The tenancy agreement is in writing. The parties to the tenancy agreement when signed were the tenants and Jaimin Babushankasrinh and Divya Yadav as landlords. However, the applicants purchased the premises, the subject of the tenancy agreement on about 7 April 2021. Consequently, as successors in title, the applicants became landlords: see definition of landlord s 3 RT Act. 4. Application RT 21/32134 (first termination application) concerned an application by the applicants for termination of the tenancy agreement. The proceedings were commenced by application filed 26 July 2021. That application sought the following orders under the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) (RT Act): Section 87 – A termination order where the tenant has breached the residential tenancy agreement Section 105-A termination order where a tenant has given a termination notice and not vacated. 1. As reflected in the first termination application, s 87 of the RT Act permits a landlord to give a notice of termination to a tenant who has breached a residential tenancy agreement and to apply to the Tribunal to make a termination order if the tenancy agreement has been breached and the Tribunal is satisfied of the matters in s 87(4). Section 105 of the RT Act permits the Tribunal, on application of the landlord, to make a termination order if satisfied a termination notice was given by a tenant in accordance with Part 5 Division 3 of the RT Act and the Tribunal is satisfied that the notice of termination was not revoked before the termination date specified in that notice and the tenant has not vacated the premises as required by the notice. 2. On 24 August 2021 the original proceedings were listed before the Tribunal for conciliation and hearing. At that time, the Tribunal made the orders including amending the application to permit the landlords leave to seek an order for termination pursuant to s 84 of the RT Act. Those orders provided as follows: 1. By Determination of member, on 24 August 2021 the hearing was adjourned to a date to be fixed by the Registrar. The next hearing will be a final hearing. 2. The applicant landlords are granted leave to seek an order for termination, pursuant to s 84 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW). 3. The respondent shall provide to the applicant and the Tribunal, either in person or by post, a copy of all documents (see note below), on which the respondent intends to rely at the hearing by 31-Aug-2021. 4. The documents provided by each party must be placed in a folder, each page must be numbered to provide easy identification by all concerned at the hearing. Folders provided to the Tribunal and to the other party(ies) must be identical and in the same order. The folder(s)should be marked with the name of the party and include: - an index - a chronology of significant events - all documents required by these directions And all documents must be legible and in colour (if the original is in colour). 5. A failure by a party to provide documents in accordance with the Tribunal orders may result in the party not being able to rely on the documents at the hearing, unless leave is granted to do so. 6. All evidence from a party's witness(es) in support of that party(ies) must be in the form of a statement, statutory declaration, affidavit or expert report as appropriate. 1. The Tribunal permitted the amendment as the applicants had indicated to the Tribunal that they were relying upon a notice of termination under s 84 of the RT Act. The notice provided in a bundle of documents filed by the applicants on 15 September 2021 was dated 23 June 2021. The notice required the respondents to give vacant possession of the premises by 26 July 2021. The notice was issued under s 84 of the RT Act for the purpose of terminating the tenancy agreement at the end of the fixed term (s 84 notice). 2. The following day, namely 25 August 2021, the applicants in the present proceedings made a further application to the Tribunal against the respondents. In that application, RT 21/36269, termination orders were sought under s 87 because the respondent had not paid rent since 1 August 2021 (second termination application). That application stated "The termination date is 23/06/2021". 3. It does not appear any termination notice had been issued at this time in respect of non-payment of rent. 4. The s 84 notice had crossed out that section relating to non-payment of rent and the Tribunal is unaware of any other notice that might have been issued to terminate the tenancy for non-payment of rent prior to the second termination application being filed. Indeed, the only evidence presently before the Tribunal concerning termination for non-payment of rent is dated 14 September 2021 (September notice). At this point the Tribunal should note that the applicants have not ticked any box in the September notice to indicate the basis upon which that notice was issued and, prima facie, this notice is defective. 5. In addition to the first termination application and the second termination application, a third application was made being application RT 21/38704. In this application Mr Singh and Ms Kaur were the applicants and Mr and Mrs Lekhwar were the respondents (tenants' application). It is sufficient to note the tenants' application sought a declaration under s 11 of the RT Act concerning whether the tenancy agreement was or was not a residential tenancy agreement under the RT Act. There is no present dispute that there is a residential tenancy agreement. 6. Following directions for the filing and service of evidence in all these proceedings, the first termination application, second termination application and the tenants' application were listed for hearing on 9 November 2021. 7. On 9 November 2021 the Tribunal made the following orders (November orders) in relation to the three applications: 1. By Determination of member, on 09 November 2021 the hearing was adjourned to a date to be fixed by the Divisional Registrar. 2. By consent, the Residential Tenancy Agreement is terminated in accordance with: •s 84 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010, as the landlord has served a termination notice for termination at the end of the fixed term. 3. By consent, the Residential Tenancy Agreement is terminated immediately and possession is to be given to the landlord on the date of termination. 4. By consent, the order for possession is suspended until 30-Nov-2021 5. By consent, the tenant shall pay the landlord a daily occupation fee at the rate of $57.14 per day from the day after the date of termination, namely 10-Nov-2021 until the date vacant possession is given to the landlord. 6. By consent, within 60 days of the date for possession of the premises specified in these orders the landlord may request the relisting of the application to determine the amount of the occupation fee owing. 7. These orders and directions are made in File Nos. RT 21/32134, the Landlords' first application seeking an order to terminate a residential tenancy agreement under s 84 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 NSW (RT Act), RT 21/36269, the Landlords' second application seeking to terminate the residential tenancy agreement for non-payment of rent under s 87 of the RT Act, and RT 21/38704, the Tenants' application seeking a declaration under s 11 of the RT Act that there was no residential tenancy agreement. 8. The Tribunal notes these matters were discussed and agreed between the parties at today's hearing (in this respect, the Tenants were aided in their understanding of the discussion and of the agreements, by a Hindi speaking interpreter, Mr Nishant Kaira): (1) The Tenants and the Landlords were agreed on orders in respect of termination and possession of the residential tenancy agreement for the residential premises at Kingswood NSW, including that possession of the premises is provided to the Landlords no later than 30 November 2021; (2) The remaining issues in dispute between the parties were as to rent arrears and as to a claim for compensation by the Tenants (which will be articulated in a further application to be lodged with the Tribunal by the Tenants); (3) The Landlords' claim for rent arrears needs to be supported by a rent ledger and any other relevant documents (e.g. a rent increase notice served in accordance with the RT Act) and as was not the case today, all documents relied on need to be in hard copy form and tabbed, indexed and sequentially page numbered; (4) The Tenants submitted that they had received the Landlords' documents as to the claim for rent arrears late (i.e. on 4 November 2021, when, in fact, the direction was for documents to be provided to them by 22 October 2021) and that the Tenants therefore required an adjournment of the rent arrears aspect of the Landlords' claim, so that the Tenants could respond to that part of the claim with their own documents; (5) Other orders and directions are now made accordingly to enable a further hearing on the remaining issues in dispute; (6) The Tenants further agreed that their application (file no RT 21/38704) could be dismissed, as the Landlords would provide an acknowledgment that the Tenants occupied the premises as the Landlords' Tenants under a residential tenancy agreement. 9. The Tribunal notes the parties agree that in consideration of the Tenants consenting to orders of termination and possession, the Landlords acknowledge GURJIT SINGH and KIRANJIT KAUR occupied the residential premises at Kingswood NSW under a residential tenancy agreement with the Landlords for rent payable of $400 per week. The Landlords agree that they will confirm these matters to any real estate agent that contacts them on behalf of the Tenants and if necessary, that the Landlords will provide written confirmation of these matters to the said agent. 10. The Tribunal makes the following further orders and directions in respect of the remaining issues in dispute between the parties: (1) on or before 16 November 2021, the Landlords are to provide to the Tribunal and to the Tenants, in person or by post, all further documents (including a rent ledger) on which they seek to rely in support of their rent arrears claim against the Tenants; (2) on or before 30 November 2021, the Tenants are to provide to the Tribunal and the Landlords, in person or by post, all documents in reply to the Landlords' claim for rent arrears; (3) also, on or before 30 November 2021, the Tenants are to lodge any application in respect of their claim for compensation against the Landlords, with supporting documents including any statutory declarations and written submissions; (4) if the Tenants lodge a further application in respect of a claim for compensation against the Landlords, the Deputy Divisional Registrar is directed to list the new application with the Landlords' claim for rent arrears (which is to be continued in this file, no RT 21/32134); (5) on or before 14 December 2021. the Landlords are to provide to the Tribunal and the Tenants, in person or by post, any documents in reply to the Tenants' claim for compensation; (6) all documents provided pursuant to the above directions are to be in hard copy form and they must be tabbed, indexed and sequentially page numbered so as to facilitate ease of reference at the hearing, and the documents provided to the other party are to be in the same form and in the same order as they were provided to the Tribunal. 11. The proceeding constituted by the application in file no RT 21/32134 continues as the Landlords' claim for rent arrears; otherwise, the Landlords' second application (file no RT 21/36269) and the Tenants' application (file no RT 21/38704) are dismissed. 1. As can be seen from those orders: 1. A termination order was made in the first termination application proceedings under s 84 of the RT Act, not for non-payment of rent; 2. The second termination application was dismissed, as was the tenants' application; 1. In addition, the first termination application was adjourned, the Tribunal saying in order 11 that that application "continues as the Landlords' claim for rent arrears". 2. In doing so, Tribunal did not explain why the proceedings were adjourned to consider an application for an order for payment of rent arrears in circumstances where: 1. No money claim was included in the first termination application; 2. No order permitting amendment to make such a claim had been made; and 3. The proceedings were otherwise listed for final hearing of all issues following a protracted time in the Tribunal. 1. Be that as it may, Tribunal (differently constituted) subsequently made a money order for outstanding rent of $4,914.28 for the period to 9 November 2021: see orders made 7 February 2022 in application RT 21/32134. 2. As indicated above, the respondents appealed the November orders, that appeal being the subject of the appeal decision on 16 May 2021. 3. The Appeal Panel made the following orders (Appeal Orders): (1) The names of the respondents to the appeal are corrected in the appeal and in each of the proceedings at first instance to "Vinita Lekhwar and Keshavanand Lekhwar." (2) A further hearing of the appellants' application to re-open the hearing of the appeal and any further hearing of the appeal itself be dispensed with. (3) The appeal is allowed. (4) The orders made by the Tribunal on 9 November 2021 the subject of this appeal, namely orders 1,2,3,4,5,6 and 7 are set aside. (5) Proceedings RT 21/32134 be remitted to the Tribunal for re-determination insofar as those proceedings seek orders in relation to possession of the residential premises the subject of these proceedings, including any order for termination of a residential tenancy agreement between the parties. (6) Mr Singh's trustee(s) in bankruptcy is/are made a party to proceedings RT 21/32134. (7) Mr Singh is to provide the name and address of his trustee(s) in bankruptcy to the Appeal Registry and the respondents to the appeal, by email, within 10 working days. 1. It is unclear why the Appeal Panel set aside order 7 of the November orders. However, significantly, order 11 was not set aside. In any event, the second termination application (RT 21/36269) and the tenants application (RT 21/38704) were dismissed in consequence of the November orders and remain dismissed as order 11 was not set aside. 2. It is in against this background that the proceedings were listed for hearing before the Tribunal on 25 May 2022. The hearing on 25 May 2022 1. The remitted proceedings were listed for hearing on 25 May 2022. 2. Prior to that hearing, directions had been made for the filing and service of evidence and submissions. The applicants and the tenants filed various evidence and submissions in support of their positions. 3. In addition, notice of the hearing was given to Mssrs Innis Anthony Cull and Gess Michael Rimbaldi (Trustees), from Pitcher Partners, who had apparently been appointed trustees for Mr Singh. 4. The Trustees, through one of the trustees, Mr Cull, provided an email to the Tribunals indicating that the Trustees: 1. did not intend to participate in these proceedings; 2. did not oppose the orders sought by the landlord including orders terminating a residential tenancy agreement. 3. In doing so the trustees also indicated that the bankrupt estate was without funds. 1. The Trustees also provided a copy of the certificate of appointment issued by the Official Receiver. That document recorded the following matters: 1. the bankrupt was Mr Gurgit Singh, the first respondent in those proceedings; 2. a sequestration order was made in respect of Mr Singh's estate in proceedings NSW 815 of 2021/8 on 6 May 2021; and 3. the Trustees were appointed on 6 May 2021, such appointment being Joint and Several. 1. The Tribunal identified a number of issues which needed to be dealt with at the hearing on 25 May 2022. These included whether an order should be made to formally join the Trustees as respondents in the proceedings. 2. In addition, Mr Singh made various applications including: 1. that the proceedings should be adjourned due to there being insufficient time to prepare for hearing (adjournment application); and 2. that I should disqualify myself on the grounds of bias (bias application). Consideration 1. The applicants appeared in person at the hearing on 25 May 2022, the hearing being conducted by audio visual link. Mr Singh and Ms Kaur also appeared, participating by telephone. 2. Despite Mr Singh's bankruptcy and his standing as a party (a matter to which I returned below), on the application of Ms Kaur I made an order permitting Mr Singh to represent his wife. Joinder of Trustees and rights of Mr Singh 1. At the commencement of the hearing I decided that the first matter to be determined was the joinder of the Trustees and their formal naming as parties in these proceedings. 2. I indicated to the parties that I had received an email from the Trustees, including the certificate of their appointment which I have referred above. 3. I determined that an order should be made joining the Trustees and gave oral reasons for that decision. The need to do so arose from order 6 of the Appeal Orders and is, in part, explained by the decision of the Appeal Panel where, at [13] of the appeal decision they said: 13 The direction (Direction) we gave the parties to consider and make submissions on, in respect of the male appellant's bankruptcy, was in the following terms: Near the close of the hearing on 11 April 2022, Mr Singh, for the appellants, in the context of discussion about their application to re-open the hearing of the appeal lodged shortly before the hearing on that day, drew the Appeal Panel's attention to his bankruptcy. In this regard, he referred the Appeal Panel to a decision of Senior Member Ellis SC made on 4 April 2022 which had dealt with the impact of his bankruptcy on other proceedings brought by him in the Tribunal. In that decision Senior Member Ellis had referred to the decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in Singh v Khan [2021] NSWSC 1093 made on 30 August 2021 based upon a sequestration order made on 6 May 2021 (referred to at [19] of that decision) against Mr Singh and to the undisputed fact that Mr Singh was an undischarged bankrupt. It is most regrettable that Mr Singh's status as a bankrupt was not drawn to the attention of the Appeal Panel until well after the hearing of the appeal on 28 January 2022 or to the attention of Senior Member Charles in connection with the hearing on 9 November 2021 at which the orders were made which other subject of the appeal. Mr Singh's status as a bankrupt is highly relevant to the outcome of the appeal. It appears to be well-established that upon becoming a bankrupt a tenant's interest in the property the subject of the tenancy vests in the trustee in bankruptcy and that, as a consequence, the tenant has no interest in proceedings brought against him for termination of the tenancy and possession of the property and has no standing to be heard in defence of such proceedings or to bring an appeal from orders about these matters; s 58 (1) (a) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth); Nathan Elali (a bankrupt) v Mahrs and Anor [2013] NSWSC 1883 at [27]; National Australia Bank Ltd v Strik [2009] NSWSC 184 at [9]; Kostov v Amelie Housing (NCAT Appeal) [2019] NSWSC 16 at [7]-[14]; Integrated Securities No 3 Pty Ltd v Oceans 5 Ultimate Getaways Pty Ltd [2021] NSWSC 278 at [7]; see also Tadrosse v Ndaira [2015] NSWCATAP 84 at [10]-[13] and the reference to the decision of the High Court in Cummings v Claremont Petroleum NL (1996) 185 CLR 124 at 135-138 and Singh v Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice [2022] NSWSC 78 concerning the ability of a bankrupt to bring an appeal. Accordingly, the appellants' consent to the orders the subject of this appeal, at least to the extent that Mr Singh consented on his own behalf, was of no effect. It was only the trustee in bankruptcy who was in a position to consent to the orders the subject of this appeal that were made on 9 November 2021 on behalf of Mr Singh. Ms Singh, however, is not a bankrupt as far as we have been made aware. She appears to have standing to bring the appeal, at least insofar as protecting her own interests in maintaining the residential tenancy. 1. What is also relevant is that at the time the Tribunal made the November orders and, apparently, at all times up until the appeal, the applicants and the Tribunal were unaware that Mr Singh had been made bankrupt and a sequestration order made. 2. The significance of these matters can be stated shortly. 3. Mr Singh was made bankrupt on 6 May 2021. At that time the sequestration order was made, the tenancy agreement had already been entered into and was a continuing agreement. 4. Because a sequestration order was made under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cwth) (Bankruptcy Act), property of Mr Singh vested in the Trustees. This includes the tenancy agreement. Consequently, Mr Singh was not entitled to defend proceedings for possession, any such entitlement also vesting in his Trustees. This is made clear by various decisions of the Supreme Court of New South Wales referred to in the appeal decision at [13] set out above. 5. Two brief references to authority should be made on this point. First is the decision of the Supreme Court in National Australia Bank Limited v Strik [2009] NSWSC 184. There, in connection with an application by the bank to see possession of a property following default under a mortgage, the Court said at [9]: 9 I am satisfied that the Defendant has no more than a bare legal interest in the Wollongong property which he holds for the benefit of the Official Trustee, and that he has no interest in the proceedings brought against him for possession of the property and has no standing to be heard in defence of the Plaintiff's claim: Farrow Mortgage Services Pty Ltd v Winfield (1992) 2 QdR 282 at 285; Bendigo Bank Ltd v Demaria [2001] VSC 218 at [18]. Mr White has drawn the Court's attention, appropriately, to the decision of Dodds-Streeton J of the Victorian Supreme Court in Re-Engine Pty Ltd v Fergusson (2007) 209 FLR 1 at 9-12 [50-[68], where reference was made to a number of decisions, including Farrow Mortgage Services Pty Ltd v Winfield and Bendigo Bank Ltd v Demaria. Dodds-Streeton J observed at 12 [67]-[68] that, although the authorities indicate that a bankrupt does not have locus standi or an entitlement to be heard, the Court has a discretion to permit a person to give evidence in answer to allegations of personal misconduct and that, in the unusual circumstances of that case, it would promote the due administration of justice to permit the person to be heard. Nothing said by her Honour undermines the principle concerning standing expressed in Farrow Mortgage Services Pty Ltd v Winfield and Bendigo Bank Ltd v Demaria. 1. Second, is the decision in Nathan Elali (a bankrupt) v Mahrs and Anor [2013] NSWSC 1883. That case involved a dispute concerning a residential tenancy agreement. At [27] the Court said: The Court has been referred to a number of other cases that do not seem to be directly in point. The plaintiff relied on National Australia Bank Ltd v Strik [2009] NSWSC 184 ("Strik"). But this case merely reaffirms the well established proposition that a bankrupt has no interest in proceedings brought against him for possession of property and has no standing to be heard in defence of a claim for possession: Farrow Mortgage Services Pty Ltd v Winfield [1992] 2 Qd R 282 ("Farrow") at 285 and Bendigo Bank Ltd v Demaria [2001] VSC 218 ("Bendigo") at [18]. 1. The Court then continued at [28]: In the proceedings before the Consumer Trader Tenancy Tribunal ("CTTT") cases such as Strik, Farrow and Bendigo may well mean that Mr Elali has no standing to oppose the Mahrs claim for possession 1. Consequently, it seems Mr Singh has no standing to defend the application for termination and possession, that right vesting in the Trustees who, as indicated above, do not oppose an order for possession. 2. On one view, Mr Singh should be removed as a party to these proceedings. At this stage, and for the purpose of ensuring that any orders bind all parties, this question should be deferred to the final hearing. Adjournment application 1. As I indicated above, Mr Singh had two preliminary applications to make before consideration could be given to the substantial issues raised in those proceedings. Despite the fact he may lack status to defend these proceedings, as the representative for his wife, Ms Kaur, he was able to make the adjournment application and the bias application on his wife's behalf. This is because she is also a tenant but not a bankrupt. Mr Singh indicated he wished me to deal with the adjournment application first, which I did. 2. The applicants oppose the adjournment application. In short, they said these proceedings had been commenced in July last year and remained unresolved. They raised issues concerning the multiple proceedings between the parties, including the appeal. They said they had not been paid rent and were suffering hardship. In doing so, and when asked by the Tribunal, the applicants said that they were seeking termination at the end of a fixed term tenancy based on the s 84 notice. 3. During the course of these submissions, the Tribunal raised with the applicants that it appeared the application for termination made under s 84 of the RT Act had been filed prematurely and ought to be dismissed. 4. These discussions did not deal with further issues, namely the fact that the first termination application (the terms of which are set out above) sought termination for breach (which could include non-payment of rent). However, I should note, as recorded above, that there does not appear to be any evidence before the Tribunal of a termination notice for non-payment of rent having been served upon the tenants prior to the filing of the original proceedings. The absence of such a notice may be fatal to any application in these proceedings for termination on the grounds a residential tenancy agreement has been breached. 5. Also, although the second termination application sought termination for non-payment of rent: 1. that application had been dismissed by order 11 of the November order, which has not been set aside by the Appeal Orders; and 2. there was no evidence of any appropriate notice of termination for non-payment of rent having been served prior to 25 August 2021, the date the application was filed. 1. While the applicants continued to press for the adjournment application to be refused, I formed the view that they did not understand the issues which the Tribunal raised nor did they understand that their application may be dismissed because of those matters. 2. I also considered the issue of hardship which had been raised, in part arising from the applicants' stated need for accommodation and by reason of the claim non-payment of rent. These matters, if well-founded, might be the subject of further applications to the Tribunal. Whether or not such further application should be made or those matters made the subject of the present application are matters to be considered by the applicants. 3. However, as there was no relevant application or evidence about these matters and as the tenants maintained their request for an adjournment, I determined the proceedings should be adjourned so as to give an opportunity to all parties to consider their position and provide additional time to prepare for the final hearing. In doing so, I have regard to the guiding principle found in s 36(1) of the (NSW) (NCAT Act), namely that the Tribunal is to facilitate the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues in the proceedings. 4. Those real issues include whether the present application has properly been brought having regard to the requirements of the RT Act, whether notices of termination, if required, have been served prior to the commencement of any proceedings seeking orders for termination and whether the application was filed in the manner permitted by s 83(2) and/or s 88 or otherwise in accordance with the RT Act. Directions 1. The directions I have made on 27 May 2022 and these reasons are for the purpose of facilitating a final hearing on 9 June 2022. The parties should consider whether legal advice should be obtained. Any application for legal representation can be dealt with at the hearing on 9 June 2022. 2. The issues identified in these reasons, in the directions which I have made and any other issues which the parties wish to raise should, to the extent not already included in the submissions filed prior to now, be dealt with in written submissions as provided by the Tribunal's directions. Commencement time for hearing 1. Mr Singh asked that the hearing not commence at 9:15 am which is otherwise the usual start time for proceedings in the Consumer and Commercial Division. He requested the hearing commenced late in the morning, at 11:30am, as he has other proceedings in the New South Wales Supreme Court. 2. The Tribunal was informed that those court proceedings were not listed on 9 June 2022. One matter was listed on 8 June 2022 and the other on 14 June 2022. 3. No reason was given justifying a late start. On the other hand, commencing at 11:30 am may not allow sufficient time to finalise the hearing on that day. 4. In my view, having regard to the history of these proceedings, when they were commenced and the nature of the proceedings it is essential that the application for termination be resolved at the earliest possible time. Accordingly, the hearing will start a later than is usual practice, at 10 am on 9 June 2020 Orders 1. The Tribunal published the orders to which these reasons relate on 27 May 2022. ********** I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. Registrar DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 31 May 2022