//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
austlii:nsw/NSWCTTT/2004/622
defendant. Application dismissed. The Tribunal was not satisfied at the civil standard of proof that the grounds required to make the orders sought had been established.
Ms Budd, a public housing tenant with anxiety disorders, claimed her landlord (the Department of Housing) had breached her privacy and failed to maintain a common area properly. She sought $10,000 in damages and court orders. Because of her medical conditions, she couldn't attend the hearing and asked the Tribunal to decide the case based on written documents. The Tribunal agreed to do this. However, the medical reports Ms Budd provided only discussed her mental health—they didn't prove that the common area was dirty or that her privacy had been invaded. The Department of Housing provided photos showing the area was clean and tidy, with clear access to her unit. The Tribunal found Ms Budd hadn't proven her case and dismissed her application.
AI-generated legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Check the cited source, and for advice about your situation consult a qualified Australian lawyer.
This matter was listed in a group list before me on 12 August 2004.
1 cited instrument linked from this judgment.
The applicant did not appear. I perused the documents within the file and noted a letter written by the Applicant to the Tribunal dated 27 July 2004. In that letter the Applicant requested an adjournment of her case as she was seeking assistance from the Eastern Area Tenancy Service. She went on to say 'Also if this is rejected I will request that you please hear my case on the written submissions, documents, evidence and my psychological and medical evidence I put with my file."
I note that the Applicant suffers from Agoraphobia and Social Phobia, and accordingly she may not be able to attend a Tribunal hearing. In light of the letter on file and the absence of any appearance on behalf of Ms Budd on the day, I dealt with the matter on the papers.
I read the following documents that had been provided by the Applicant:
1. Notice signed by Local Court Waverley dated 8 May 2003
2. Report of C Alexander (psychologist) dated 2 August 2003
3. Letter from Minister for Housing dated 25 May 2004
5. Report from Dr L R. Goodman dated 17 August 2003
6. Report from Community Health Services dated 7 July 2004
The above documents refer to Ms Budd's state of mental health but provide no evidence in support of her claim that:
1. The state of the common area is causing her serious inconvenience and requires cleaning, or
2. That the Department of Housing has interfered with her privacy or quiet enjoyment of the premises
Ms Hoad represented the Department of Housing. Ms Hoad stated that in the past there were a number of pot plants in the common area, however, these have now been removed. She stated that the Department has not conducted client visits and she could not understand why the Applicant felt her privacy was being breached.
Ms Hoad produced photographs of the common property verandah that is adjacent to Ms Budd's unit (37) and continues down to unit 38 at the other end of the building. The photographs show that there is clear access from Ms Budd's unit to the verandah and to the stairway. The photographs do show a cabinet and some pot plants directly outside unit 38. Ms Hoad stated that these do not interfere with the Applicant's access to her apartment. That would appear to be the case as revealed by the photographs. Overall, my impression is that the area is neat and well maintained.
The Applicant has not provided evidence to establish her claim. Accordingly the claim is dismissed.
Budd
Department of Housing
Application dismissed. The Tribunal was not satisfied at the civil standard of proof that the grounds required to make the orders sought had been established.