Faull v Commissioner for Social Housing for the ACT and Residential Tenancies Tribunal; Faull v Commissioner for Social Housing for the ACT

(2013) 277 FLR 61; [2013] ACTSC 121

Supreme Court of the ACT

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Landlord and Tenant
2. › Residential tenancies
3. › Termination of tenancy
4. › Termination under s 51 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (ACT)
5. › Meaning of 'intentionally or recklessly'
6. › Whether mental element directed to outcomes specified in paragraphs or merely to voluntariness of acts
7. › Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (ACT), s 51
1. Landlord and Tenant
2. › Residential tenancies
3. › Termination of tenancy
4. › Meaning of 'injury' in s 51(c)
5. › Whether psychological injury requires recognised psychiatric illness
6. › Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (ACT), s 51(c)
1. Administrative Law
2. › Jurisdictional error
3. › Jurisdictional facts
4. › Failure to make finding of jurisdictional fact
5. › Whether Tribunal's failure to find intention or recklessness as to statutory outcomes constituted jurisdictional error
6. › Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (ACT), s 51
1. Administrative Law
2. › Reasons for decision
3. › Adequacy of reasons
4. › Whether absence of finding in reasons indicates finding not made
5. › Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (ACT), s 106

Quick Take

Under s 51 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (ACT), the mental element of 'intentionally or recklessly' must be directed to the outcomes specified in the paragraphs (injury, interference with quiet enjoyment), not merely to the voluntariness of the tenant's acts. 'Injury' in s 51(c), so far as psychological injury is concerned, requires a recognised psychiatric illness, not merely emotional disturbance such as stress, anxiety or sleeplessness. The RT Tribunal must make an express finding of the jurisdictional fact of intention or recklessness as to the statutory outcomes before exercising the termination power.