Tailo v New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation [2014] NSWCATAP 65

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Tailo v New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation [2014] NSWCATAP 65 Hearing dates: Decision on the papers. Decision date: 17 October 2014 Jurisdiction: Appeal Panel Before: Prof G. Walker, Senior Member; S Thode, Senior Member. Decision: Leave to appeal refused Appeal dismissed. Catchwords: RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES - termination -leave to appeal. Legislation Cited: Residential Tenancies Act 2010; Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013. Cases Cited: Collins v Urban [2014] NSWCATAP 17; Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Bradshaw (1986) 84 FLR 49; Niemann v Electronic Industries Ltd [1978] VR 431. Category: Principal judgment Parties: Steven Tailo (applicant) Representation: Mr D Ford, Department of Family and Community Services (respondent) File Number(s): AP 14/46419 Decision under appeal Jurisdiction: 150003 Date of Decision: 2014-06-04 00:00:00 Before: D Turley, General Member File Number(s): SH 14/15826

reasons for decision 1The appellant Mr Steven Tailo was formerly the tenant of the premises known as 13/2-7 Tara Close, Yennora, New South Wales, which he leased from the respondent corporation. 2On 4 June 2014, this tribunal's Consumer and Commercial Division terminated the residential tenancy agreement between the parties in accordance with s 90 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 on the basis that the tenant had caused serious damage to the premises or injury to the landlord (the respondent), the landlord's agent, employee, contractor or neighbour. 3The tenancy agreement was terminated immediately and the tribunal directed that possession was to be given to the landlord on the date of termination. 4On 5 June 2014, the divisional registrar wrote to the appellant informing him that a warrant for possession had been issued on the ground that Mr Tailo had not complied with the order for possession. The warrant was executed on 17 June 2014 and accordingly the appellant has not occupied the premises since then. In the meantime, on 13 June 2014 the appellant lodged a notice of appeal with this tribunal seeking to initiate an internal appeal to the Appeal Panel. 5The appellant requested a stay of the operation of the orders made on 4 June 2014 pending the determination of his appeal. On 24 June 2014 Deputy President Westgarth refused the request for a stay on the ground that as the warrant had already been executed, there was no utility in ordering a stay. 6On 13 August 2014, the Appeal Panel constituted by Wright J and Westgarth DP set a timetable for the filing and serving of written submissions and other material to be relied upon in relation to whether leave to appeal should be granted and in relation to the appeal itself if leave were granted. 7On 3 July 2014 the respondent filed written submissions but was unable to serve a copy on the appellant as it had no forwarding address for him and he no longer resides at the subject since the execution of the warrant of possession. The appellant filed no submissions other than those annexed to his notice of appeal. 8In his reasons for the decision of 4 June 2014 (which is the subject of this appeal), Member Turley noted that the applicant (the respondent corporation in this appeal) had called three witnesses and fellow tenants who gave sworn evidence. The member said their evidence was consistent, unambiguous and that he accepted it as true and honest. That evidence revealed what he described as the worst case of abuse (both physical and verbal), harassment, nuisance and threats, including death threats, that he had ever heard in this tribunal. 9Those witnesses were elderly and some were infirm. The member was satisfied on their sworn evidence that Mr Tailo had terrorized those people and made their lives a misery. One witness had moved away completely to avoid him and another would spend long periods of time staying with relatives to avoid Mr Tailo and his abuse. 10Mr Tailo's answer to that evidence was the assertion "It's all lies, all lies", with no evidence to support his claim. He did have two relatives as witnesses present at the hearing, but they left the tribunal before their turn came to give evidence. Mr Tailo tried by telephone tried to persuade the proposed witnesses to return to the tribunal, but they failed to do so and no adjournment was requested. At the conclusion of his evidence Mr Tailo conceded that he had no evidence to support his allegations. 11In its directions made on 13 August 2014, the Appeal Panel ordered that the matter be determined on the papers without an oral hearing.