Maytom v Laundy [2024] NSWSC 817

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Maytom v Laundy [2024] NSWSC 817 Hearing dates: 29 June 2024 Date of orders: 29 June 2024 Decision date: 29 June 2024 Jurisdiction: Equity - Duty List Before: Meek J Decision: No interim order made. Leave granted to file summons and affidavit in Court and orders made for short service. Catchwords: LEASES AND TENANCIES — Tenancies — Week to week tenancy — Plaintiffs, together with granddaughter and assistance cat, resided in studio apartment in hotel accommodation above public bar for several years on week to week tenancy — Hotel management gave first plaintiff a written notice to vacate the studio apartment in seven weeks' time —Plaintiffs accepted that there was no notice to vacate required under the tenancy, nor was there a requirement of notice to leave — Plaintiffs accepted that neither the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) nor the Boarding Houses Act 2012 (NSW) applied to the tenancy — Nonetheless, plaintiffs sought urgent interim order restraining enforcement of the notice to vacate, which required apartment to be vacated the following day HUMAN RIGHTS — Discrimination — Grounds — Age and disability discrimination — Second plaintiff was an 83-year-old grandmother suffering visual impairment and deafness, along with other "complex medical needs" — Plaintiffs claimed that notice to vacate studio apartment discriminated against second plaintiff in failing to consider her disabilities, age and assistance cat — Plaintiffs sought interim order pursuant to s 105 Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) preserving status quo HUMAN RIGHTS — Legislation — Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) — Whether Supreme Court has power to make an interim order under s 105 — Discussion of role of NCAT in regulatory scheme — Held power to make interim order under s 105 is given to NCAT and Supreme Court has no power to make such an order CIVIL PROCEDURE — Parties — Appropriate defendants — Whether defendants named by plaintiffs in summons are the appropriate defendants to the claim — No formal proof or evidence that named defendants were the registered proprietors of the hotel or otherwise the actual party with whom the plaintiffs have had an arrangement for occupation of the apartment — No indication that named defendants had any knowledge of the notice to vacate Legislation Cited: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) Boarding Houses Act 2012 (NSW) Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) Cases Cited: Senthilkumaran v Gosan Pty Ltd t/as Century 21 Classic Real Estate (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 442 Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Rachel Taylor Maytom (First Plaintiff) Pamela Maytom (Second Plaintiff) Arthur Laundy (First Defendant) Stuart Laundy (Second Defendant) Representation: Self-represented (Plaintiffs) File Number(s): 2024/241007