David Harold Eastman v Commissioner for Social Housing

[2010] ACTSC 71

Supreme Court of the ACT

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Appeals
3. › Appeals on questions of law
4. › Leave to appeal from tribunal
5. › Whether estoppel raises pure question of law or mixed question of fact and law
6. › Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (ACT), s 125
1. Estoppel
2. › Promissory estoppel
3. › Estoppel against public authority
4. › Whether representation by delegate created estoppel
5. › Whether representation spent by occurrence of condition
6. › Whether detrimental reliance established
1. Administrative Law
2. › Estoppel against exercise of statutory power
3. › Whether representation ultra vires statutory power
4. › Whether operational representation inconsistent with empowering provision
5. › Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (ACT), cl 94
1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial review
3. › Wednesbury unreasonableness
4. › Whether Tribunal's exercise of discretion unreasonable
5. › Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (ACT), s 47

Quick Take

The Niemann v Electronic Industries Ltd test for leave to appeal from interlocutory orders does not apply to applications for leave to appeal under s 125 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (ACT); the statutory criterion requires identification of a question of law, an arguable error, and a potentially different outcome. Whether an estoppel arises is ordinarily a mixed question of fact and law not amenable to appeal on a question of law alone. A representation by a public housing authority's delegate that a tenant may retain a tenancy for a defined period is not ultra vires an empowering provision permitting termination without cause, but whether such an intra vires representation can found an estoppel remains an open question.