The landlord submitted that the original decision was neither correct nor preferable. The landlord's agent informed the Tribunal that it had received advice from a licensed valuer that market rent was $375 per week. The agent provided further evidence on internal review regarding the rent charged for sixteen comparative properties. The agent also told the Tribunal that the rent has been increased to $375 for other tenants in the complex where the property was located and that the other tenants had accepted this increase. Lastly, the agent submitted that the tenant does not pay for water use or charges and that his rent had only increased by $40 a week over seven years, whereas rent has generally increased in Adelaide by 10.5% since September 2023, and 24% since 2020.

The respondent tenant submitted that the appropriate rent was $275 per week. He told the Tribunal that the property is a bedsit and therefore, the properties provided by the landlord were not comparable. He argued that the fact that all of the premises were rented at the increased price was of no relevance, and that his rent should not be calculated on the basis of the requirements of the landlord's mortgage.

Held, setting aside and substituting the order under review:

• The Tribunal is satisfied the evidence establishes that $375 per week is a reasonable benchmark for a small bedsit premises with a bathroom and kitchen facilities;
• In the Tribunal's view, the following factors lead to a conclusion that the proposed rent increase appears to establish a rent that is not excessive for the premises: it is similar to the rent payable for comparable premises; similarly unrenovated premises are rented at that rate; the landlord proposes to upgrade the premises with no increase in rent; and is responsible for some of the outgoings;
• Taking into account all of the factors which appear to establish that the proposed rent would be supported as appropriate if the property was made available on the open market, the impact of any 'disproportionate' rent increase becomes less relevant to the determination of whether the rent is excessive;
• Even taking into account the significantly high increase in rent for the tenant, the Tribunal is satisfied that the proposed rent for these premises is not excessive;
• The Tribunal is satisfied that the original Order subject to review should be set aside and directs that the rent for the premises is set at $375 per week.

Internal Review - Residential Tenancy - Tenant application - Excessive Rent - Disproportionate

Residential Tenancies Act 1995 ss 55, 56

South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 ss 32, 70

Re AKS [2016] SACAT 19

Ms G D'Andre and Ms M Alexandrou, I-Manage Property Investments, in person

Mr P Coscia and Mr D Coscia, Coscia Investment Pty Ltd, in person

Made under the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 s 70(6)(c)(i)

1. This is the determination of an application for the internal review of an order made by the Tribunal on 5 June 2025 in matter number 2025/SH004005 (the original Order), amended by a further "slip rule" order of the same date.
2. In the original Order the Tribunal Member declared the rent charged for the premises ($375 per week) to be excessive, pursuant to s 56(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1995 (the RT Act), and ordered that the rent be fixed at $300 per week from 6 June 2025.
3. This application is made under s 70 of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (the SACAT Act). The Tribunal addresses applications of this nature in two stages. First, the Tribunal will determine whether leave should be granted. Second, if the Tribunal grants leave for the internal review application, then the Tribunal will review the decision made at the previous Tribunal hearing.

Issue 1: Should leave be granted for the internal review application?

1. Section 70(1a) of the SACAT Act provides that an application for internal review may only be made with leave of the Tribunal. The applicant, as the person who has applied for internal review, has the responsibility of demonstrating that the discretion to grant leave should be exercised in their favour.
2. The Tribunal adopts the approach as set out by Justice Parker in Re AKS [2016] SACAT 19 (at para 14) in determining whether permission should be granted:

...the Tribunal should take the same approach to the exercise of its discretion to grant permission for an internal review as is taken by the Supreme Court when it decides whether or not to grant permission for a civil appeal. The overriding principle is always the interests of justice. The ordinary approach is that permission will only be granted where an appeal is reasonably arguable and the subject matter is of sufficient substance to justify consideration. A failure of the first instance decision-maker to give adequate reasons will require permission to be given.

3. In this matter, I consider that leave should be granted. I note the agent, Ms D'Andre, was present at the original hearing, and the Tribunal Member gave detailed reasons for her decision. Nevertheless, at this hearing the landlords attended with Ms D'Andre and were able to provide additional information and evidence to the Tribunal which had not been available at the original hearing. Ms D'Andre also provided some additional and detailed information concerning comparative rental properties for the Tribunal to take into account. This was not available at the original hearing, when the comparator properties were provided at that hearing by the tenant, Mr Reese, and other properties were sourced after the hearing by the Tribunal Member. Further, I am satisfied that in the interests of a clear consideration of the application of s 56 of the RT Act, it is useful to grant leave in this matter.

Issue 2: Should the previous decision be affirmed, varied or set aside?

1. Section 70 of the SACAT Act requires the Tribunal to adopt the following approach when conducting an internal review:

(a) it must examine the initial decision in light of the evidence or material before the Tribunal at the time that decision was made;

(b) it may, as it thinks fit, allow further evidence or material to be presented to it;

(c) it must reach the correct or preferable decision; and

(d) it must have regard to, and give appropriate weight to, the decision of the Tribunal at first instance.

1. Ms D'Andre told the Tribunal the original decision was neither correct nor preferable, as a comparison of similar properties made it clear that the market rent for the premises was $375 per week, not $300 per week as set by the original Order. She did not agree that the comparisons provided from the earlier hearing, and upon which the original order was based, were correct in determining if the rent charged was excessive.
2. It was agreed that the subject property occupied by Mr Reese has the following features:

(a) It comprises a "bed sit", as a single room divided by a large cupboard, with a bedroom area, a kitchen and a combined living/dining area. There is a separate bathroom. There is no door between the living area, the kitchen, and the bedroom.

(b) The bathroom has a shower, toilet and basin, and fittings for a washing machine. There is also access to two coin operated washing machines elsewhere on site.

(c) The floor space of the whole of the premises is 36 square meters (36m2)

(d) The premises forms part of a complex of 24 units, which are all occupied. All units are of the same plan and size. Some of the units have been renovated, but not the subject unit.

(e) Split system air conditioner

(f) Oven with two top hot plates

(g) No on-site parking

1. Mr Reese' premises have not had any updates or renovation since the commencement of his tenancy. Although the premises was originally owned by the Blind Welfare Association, Mr Reese has not had his rent subsidised, but paid the rent advertised publicly by the former landlord. At the time the premises were purchased by the current landlord, Mr Reese was paying rent at $230 per week.
2. The landlords told the Tribunal they had purchased the complex in early 2025. They said they were committed financially to keeping the premises in full occupancy at market rent. They said, as part of obtaining the mortgage arrangements for the purchase, a licenced valuer had advised them and the bank providing the mortgage loan that market rent for the premises was $375 per week. It was on this basis the mortgage was obtained. Accordingly, they had given notice of an increase in rent to this amount to all occupants, and where vacant premises were advertised for rent, it was at this rate.
3. In the original Order, the Tribunal Member had reference to the agent's evidence that there was a high demand for the units in the complex which had been advertised at $375 per week; the rent paid by another tenant in the complex, who occupied premises apparently the same as Mr Reese' premises, which had similarly not been subject to any upgrades, at $230 per week; some comparative premises, some details of which were provided by Mr Reese; and some broadly comparable premises identified by the Tribunal Member after the hearing, from public websites.
4. The Tribunal Member is entitled to inform herself as she considers appropriate (see s 39(1)(b) of the SACAT Act), and I do not consider it inappropriate for the Tribunal Member to have made her own investigations concerning comparative premises for the purposes of determining the original matter, but I note this meant the agent or landlord had no opportunity to comment on her consideration of these comparative premises.

1. At the hearing of this application for review, the agent provided details of 16 different premises for comparison of the rent with the subject premises. They are as follows:

(a) The recently rented premises in the complex, all rented at $375 per week: 36m2; "bed sit" premises; equipped kitchenette; separated bedroom/living area, but no door between them; separate bathroom with space and connections for laundry facilities; split system air conditioner; on street parking; all renovated or to be renovated

(b) Karoomba Avenue Greenacres: $375 per week; 35m2; bedsit/studio units with kitchen, but shared laundry facility; no on-site parking; no separation of bedroom/living and kitchen area

(c) Hender Avenue Klemzig: $400 per week (2025); one bedroom; no yard; no parking; unrenovated, built 1972

(d) Collins Street Enfield: $225 per week (2019); 48m2; upstairs; no yard, no parking

(e) Collins Street Enfield: $380 per week (2024); 48m2; renovated; separate bedroom; upstairs unit; overhead fans; no yard, no parking; shared laundry

(f) Nelson Road Valley View: $370 per week; 46m2

(g) Student accommodation Kent Town: $320 per week; one bedroom with double bed and bar fridge; separate bathroom; access to kitchen and common room with TV, laundry and outdoor facilities. This is in a former motel.

(h) William Street Norwood: $470 per week; 38m2; separate bedroom; kitchen/living area; separate bathroom; upgraded; on street parking

(i) Lindsay Avenue Valley View: $490 per week; one bedroom unit; no parking; open kitchen/living area

(j) Payneham Road Glynde: $400 per week; parking with roller door; bathroom with bath.

The agent also provided some details of other one bedroom premises, all rented around $350 - 400 per week. In addition, the following were referred to:

• Blythe Street Clearview: $350 per week; two studio apartments in rear of established house; no separate bedroom; no oven; small bathroom; not furnished
• Horrocks Street Walkerville: $600 per week; 46m2; 1 bedroom unit; off street parking, small rear yard
• Aistrope Street Modbury: $450 per week; unrenovated; one bedroom; carport
• Lesley McIntyre Avenue Salisbury: $470 per week; self-contained unit at rear of house
• Units at Conyngham Street Glenunga: 20m2; bedsits, no separation of living and bedroom areas; variously $420 per week (renovated with oven); $325 with no oven; $320 with no oven; double storey, former motel.

1. I note the Tribunal Member identified some other premises for comparison. These included a "superior" premises (separate bedroom, larger, car parking and shared back yard), available for $390; and another "superior" premises with land size of 470m2, and modern kitchen with dishwasher and full oven, available for $490 per week. She also considered some two-bedroom units in an adjoining suburb, all of which appeared superior to the subject premises and which were available in the range of rent for $360 - $450 per week.
2. Ms D'Andre told the Tribunal a consideration of these comparative premises demonstrated that the rent charged for the subject premises was not excessive. She said that none of the comparative premises was an exact comparator, but she submitted the subject premises was superior to premises (2), which is also rented at $375 per week, as it was slightly larger; there was a separation between the bedroom and kitchen/living area; and a washing machine can be installed in the premises. Premises (3), at $400 per week, has a separate bedroom. Premises (4) and (5) are significantly larger (48m2), and have separate bedrooms, and the most recent rent is $380 per week. The other premises are rented at higher rates or are of a significantly different nature so as to reduce the comparison (such as the student accommodation). The second group of premises are also different in nature (e.g. former motel premises), and there is less detail available in respect of the available facilities and arrangements.
3. Ms D'Andre told the Tribunal that when the other premises in the complex were advertised at the new rent of $375 per week, they were all very quickly taken up, and there is a waiting list of tenants who are prepared to pay the increased rent. This applies whether the premises are renovated or not. The landlords stated they intended to renovate all the units. Fourteen of the unrenovated units are rented at $375 per week.
4. Ms D'Andre also told the Tribunal that Mr Reese did not pay for water use or water charges, and this had never been the case, and was not proposed. His rent had increased by $40 per week over seven years. He had been offered an upgraded premises: he was not required to move out while this was undertaken, but he could move to another unit already renovated while this work was being done. Ms D'Andre told the Tribunal seven tenants had vacated when the rent had increased, and the remaining tenants had agreed to pay the increased amount.
5. Ms D'Andre confirmed at this hearing that in her view the rent of $375 per week was a reasonable market rent and there had been no trouble renting the premises at this rate.
6. Ms D'Andre told the Tribunal rents generally had increased in Adelaide by 10.5% since September 2023, and by 24% since 2020.
7. The landlords emphasised to the Tribunal that the assessment of the market rent had been made by a licenced valuer, taking into account market conditions. The pre-existing rent had not represented market rent for the premises.

1. Mr Reese told the Tribunal he did not accept that any of the premises submitted as comparators provided appropriate comparisons. He said his premises are not a one-bedroom unit, but a studio or bedsit: there is no separate bedroom. He said that no renovation would change this and it would remain a 36 square metre bedsit. Mr Reese told the Tribunal his rent had only increased by very small amounts, $5 or $10 a week, since he had lived in the unit (from October 2018, not 1998 as stated in the original Order), and the new landlord had proposed an enormous increase. He said he did not accept the rent in other premises was of any relevance in determining if the rent is excessive: he told the Tribunal people will pay whatever they need to for a rental, but this did not mean the rent was not excessive. He told the Tribunal the rent had to be "fair". He submitted that the appropriate rent for the premises was $275 per week.
2. Mr Reese submitted he should not have to be responsible for the landlord's capacity to pay the loan negotiated to purchase the property, and his rent should not be calculated on this basis.
3. Mr Reese said he did not need his premises to be upgraded, and he was not prepared to move out while an upgrade occurred, and he should not pay for an upgrade by an increase in his rent.

1. In reviewing a Tribunal Order, the Tribunal is required to determine if the original Order constitutes a correct or preferable decision. Section 70(4) of the SACAT Act enables the Tribunal to take additional evidence or material into account in conducting a review, as well as the evidence and material before the Tribunal when it made the original Order.
2. I have taken into account the original Order and the evidence, material and submissions before the Tribunal Member in making the original Order, as well as the additional material she refers to in the original Order. In addition, I take into account the new evidence and material presented by the agent in the hearing before me, as well as the additional submissions made by the agent, the landlords, and the tenant.
3. Section 56 of the the RT Act addresses the issue of excessive rent and empowers the Tribunal to declare that the rent payable under a residential tenancy agreement is excessive (see s 56(1)). Section 56(2) of the RT Act sets out 10 factors the Tribunal must have regard to in considering if rent is excessive:

(a) the general level of rents for comparable premises in the same or similar localities; and

(b) the estimated capital value of the premises at the date of application; and

(c) the outgoings for which the landlord is liable under the agreement; and

(d) the estimated cost of the services provided by the landlord and the tenant under the agreement; and

(e) the nature and value of the furniture, equipment and other personal property provided by the landlord for the tenant's use; and

(f) the state of repair and general condition of the premises; and

(fa) the estimated cost of goods and services provided under any domestic services agreement collateral to the residential tenancy agreement; and

(fb) if the rent was purportedly increased under s 55(2a) - whether the tenant was put under undue pressure to agree to the increases; and

(fc) without limiting paragraph (fb), if the rent has been increased - whether the increase was disproportionate considering the amount of rent payable; and

(g) other relevant matters.

If the Tribunal finds ... that the rent payable under a residential tenancy agreement is excessive, the Tribunal may -

(a) fix the rent payable for the premises and vary the agreement by reducing the rent payable under the agreement accordingly; and

(b) fix a date (which cannot be before the date of the application) from which the variation takes effect; and

(c) fix a period (which cannot exceed one year) for which the order is to remain in force.

1. The Tribunal Member noted various matters with respect to the other factors referred to in s 56, but effectively focussed on the factor in s 56(2)(a) (the general level of rents for comparable premises) as of principal significance. This was the only factor in respect of which evidence and submissions were made at this hearing.
2. With reference to s 56(2)(f), the Tribunal Member noted that the premises are in worn but functioning and reasonable condition, and that they had not been upgraded during the tenancy, nor recently renovated. With respect to s 56(2)(fc), she noted that the proposed increase from $230 per week to $375 per week "represents a 63.04% increase and represents therefore a significant increase proportional to the rent payable" (see para. 30 of the original Order).
3. The Tribunal Member referred to the agent's evidence given at that hearing that the landlord intended to upgrade all the units in the complex and that the rent increase reflected appropriate rent for the upgraded premises. She stated that the agent's view expressed at the original hearing was that in their unrenovated condition the premises "would be worth about $300 - $320 per week" (para. 31).
4. This was not supported by the agent's evidence at this hearing, where she stated that 14 unrenovated units at the complex had been advertised and rented at $375 per week.
5. The Tribunal Member concluded in the original Order that the rent of $375 was excessive "taking into account all the relevant factors and particularly the comparative rental properties available, the proportional increase and the agent's evidence and knowledge of the rental market". She considered a "fair rent" to be "no more than $300 per week" (see para. 32 of the original Order).

"The general level of rents for comparable premises in the same or similar localities" - s 56(2)(a)

1. The Tribunal now has before it some more focussed evidence concerning rents for other premises. This information was provided by the agent at this review hearing and was not before the Tribunal Member at the original hearing. Pursuant to s 70(4) of the SACAT Act I am able to take this new evidence into account, and I do so.
2. This additional evidence provided by the agent was of varying quality in terms of detail, and this limits its use. The agent obtained the comparative information from information available online, and in respect of some premises, the information was quite extensive, but in respect of others was relatively bare. In addition, current rents were not always available, only the rent at which the premises were last advertised or rented. Nevertheless, the information provides some basis for comparison.
3. Mr Reese objected to comparisons being made where the premises were significantly larger than his premises of 36m2, and I accept this is a relevant factor.
4. The premises I consider to represent the closest comparators to the subject premises are the following:

(a) The recently rented premises in the complex, all rented at $375 per week. These are identical to Mr Reese' premises, other than that some have been renovated, and the evidence is that all the other premises, whether renovated or not, are rented out at $375 per week, with a waiting list and significant interest in the availability of the premises at that rent.

(b) Karoomba Avenue Greenacres: $375 per week. These premises are slightly smaller, at 35m2, with only a shared laundry facility, but otherwise very similar, as a "bedsit/studio".

(c) Hender Avenue Klemzig: $400 per week. These premises have a separate bedroom, the overall size is not known.

1. The premises elsewhere in the complex are directly comparable as they are identical in size. Some have been renovated, and were more up to date, with clean paint and new floor coverings. Other premises in the complex have not been renovated, but all are rented at $375 per week. The premises at Greenacres appear similar as a bedsit, but marginally inferior (slightly smaller, only capacity for shared laundry facilities), and these are also rented at $375 per week; and the premises at Klemzig are superior, with a separate bedroom, and cost $400 per week.
2. These premises appear to support a market rent of $375 per week for premises of the size and amenity of Mr Reese' premises.
3. Premises that have cheaper rent are quite different in nature. These are the student accommodation at Kent Town ($320 per week), in a former motel, where there is shared access to a kitchen, living area and outside area, and a double bed and bar fridge provided; and Collins Street Enfield, where rent was $225 per week in 2019. These premises are larger, at 48m2 and seem likely to have a separate bedroom, but are upstairs. Other premises in the same complex, at Unit 7, were rented for $380 per week in 2025, and have a separate bedroom, a shared laundry only, and no air conditioner, only overhead fans. At Blythe Street Clearview two studio apartments with no separate bedroom (size unknown) are each rented at $350 per week. These do not have ovens, and are situated at the rear of an established house.
4. Other premises identified above in these reasons appear to be less comparable. I do not consider the other premises identified by the Tribunal Member in the original Order as relevantly comparable: the new evidence at this hearing has provided more useful information.
5. Considering the other factors referred to in s 56(2) of the Act, I note that in respect of Mr Reese' tenancy, the landlord pays for the water use and water supply charge (see s 56(2)(c); and the premises have not been upgraded for some time, and certainly not during Mr Reese' tenancy, but Mr Reese indicated he was not concerned about this, and the landlord stated that it was intended to upgrade the premises, and they were prepared to do so while Mr Reese maintained his tenancy (see s 56(2)(f)). Mr Reese did not suggest there were any issues concerning the condition and state of repair of the premises, and the Tribunal Member described their condition in the original Order as "in worn but functioning and reasonable condition".
6. The final consideration identified in s 56(2) of the RT Act which is applicable in this matter is set out in s 56(2)(fc), namely_, if the rent has been increased - whether the increase was disproportionate considering the amount of rent payable_.
7. Mr Reese' rent was $190 per week at the commencement of his tenancy. At the time the landlord gave notice of the increase in rent to the amount before the Tribunal ($375 per week), his rent was $230 per week. The agent and landlord told the Tribunal that the rent had been kept artificially low over a lengthy period of time as a result of various benefits payable to the former owner. Mr Reese told the Tribunal he had never received any rebates or supports for his rent in the past, and that what governed the previous landlord's determination of rent should not be assumed by the Tribunal.
8. The Tribunal Member assessed the proposed increase in rent from $230 per week to $375 per week as representing an increase of 63.04% and described it as "a significant increase proportional to the rent payable". I accept her assessment in this respect. It is a very large proportional increase in the rent payable.
9. In my view, none of the factors referred to in s 56(2) of the RT Act as relevant in determining of the rent charged for the premises is excessive is in itself determinative. The matters identified in considering those factors need to be balanced against each other.
10. The relevant information establishes, in my view, the following matters. The proposed rent seems to be fairly consistent with that charged for comparable premises (in a similar area, about the same size, and comprised by bedsit (single room) accommodation, with its own fully equipped kitchen, laundry fittings and facilities available, and a separate bathroom); the premises are unfurnished; they are not renovated, but the landlord proposes to undertake renovations without increasing the present proposed rent, and the premises are at the moment, "in worn but functioning and reasonable condition"; the landlord bears the cost of water use and supply, with the tenant paying any other household costs, such as electricity; and the rent has been historically low, with small irregular increases, and the proposed increase is proportionately very significant, and high in relation to the rent payable.
11. All these considerations must be balanced together to determine if the proposed rent is excessive.
12. I am satisfied the evidence establishes that $375 per week is a reasonable benchmark for small bedsit premises with a bathroom and kitchen facilities. This is demonstrated by a consideration of the rent payable for comparable premises. I also accept the agent and landlords' evidence that there is a waiting list for premises in the complex, and that there was no difficulty in renting the premises, whether or not renovated, at this amount. In my view the market provides a strong indicator of the appropriate rent payable.
13. I note Mr Reese' submission that people pay this rent, even though in his view it is excessive, because they have no choice. This may be true, but this is the working of the market: with scarcity or high demand, prices increase. The same principle applies in relation to rents. Section 56 of the RT Act is concerned with the issue of excessive rents, not rent control, which the RT Act does not establish.
14. There are some other relevant factors, which I have referred to above, to consider in the context of s 56 of the Act. The premises are not furnished, and the landlord provides no services, but the landlord does pay for water use and supply charges. This may be a necessary arrangement because of the arrangements for the supply and recording of water use at the complex, but it is a relevant matter in the context of the rent payable (that is, what is received in exchange for the payment of rent). The premises are in a reasonable, if worn, condition, but the landlord is prepared to upgrade and renovate them without an increase in the rent. Mr Reese did not want the premises upgraded, but if this occurs, this will not increase the rent payable (this does not mean the rent cannot be increased in the future, but only in accordance with the requirements of the RT Act).
15. In my view, all these factors lead to a conclusion that the proposed rent increase appears to establish a rent that is not excessive for these premises. It is similar to the rent payable for comparable premises; while the premises have not recently been upgraded, similarly unrenovated premises are rented at that rate, and the landlord proposes to upgrade the premises with no increase in rent; and the landlord bears some of the outgoings.
16. However, I accept that the proposed rent increase is significant and high in proportion to the rent payable. The increase is about 63% of the rent payable. Is the size of the proposed increase in rent in itself sufficient to establish the conclusion that the rent is excessive?
17. In my view, taking into account all the other factors which appear to establish that the proposed rent ($375 per week) would be supported as an appropriate rent if the premises were made available for rent on the open market, and are likely to be rented at that amount payable per week, the impact of any "disproportionate" rent increase becomes less relevant to the determination of whether the rent is excessive. The proposed increase is very significant to an existing tenant, such as Mr Reese, but in my view the proposed increase brings the rent payable into line with rent payable for comparable premises, reflecting the low rent, and the small rent increases, which Mr Reese has had since the commencement of his tenancy. The proposed increase is not disproportionate to the rent payable in respect of comparable premises, or to increases in accordance with the market over the past few years. I accept the evidence of Ms D'Andre that Adelaide rents had increased by 10.5% since September 2023, and by 24% since 2020. Mr Reese' rent had increased by a total of $40 per week over a period of seven years.
18. On my calculation, if regular market increases as referred to by Ms D'Andre had applied to Mr Reese' initial rent of $190 per week since 2019, the rent payable now for these premises would in any event be in the vicinity of $375 per week.
19. Accordingly, even taking into account the significantly high increase in rent for Mr Reese, and considering the matters referred to above, I am satisfied that the proposed rent for these premises is not excessive.
20. For these reasons, I am satisfied that the original Order subject to this review should be set aside, and that a different order should be made.
21. I am satisfied that the proposed rent increase does not establish an excessive rent for these premises. I note that the increase in rent payable was to apply from 6 June 2025. Taking into account these proceedings, I will direct that the rent for the premises at $375 per week applies from 28 days from the date of this order.

1. The Tribunal grants leave to apply for internal review.
2. I set aside the order of the Tribunal made on 5 June 2025 and substitute the following orders instead:

the proposed rent of $375 per week for these premises is not excessive, and shall apply in respect of these premises from 28 days after the date of this order.