Mr Tomkins: The insurers may have their own files I don't know."
16 At p. 31 the transcript records the following from the Tribunal member:
"Member: … that he suffers from. The difficulty that I have in this matter, and I need to determine whether in the circumstances of the case it's appropriate to make an order terminating the tenancy agreement or not. I don't have any evidence, other than the evidence of Mr Douglas and his carer, about the medical conditions that Mr Douglas suffers from and their nature. While I'm satisfied they may provide a level of inconvenience, I'm just not satisfied on the evidence before me that the medical circumstances of Mr Douglas is so severe that I should decline to make an order terminating his tenancy agreement."
17 The transcript also records that the plaintiff sought to introduce other considerations (such as the manner in which the first defendant had treated other tenants). The Tribunal member correctly refused to take such considerations into account.
18 The Tribunal member also had regard to the plaintiff's failure to comply with the previous orders of the Tribunal (orders made on 26 October 2006 and 21 December 2006), the hardship of others who had been on a waiting list for over two years to obtain occupation of what were similar to the premises and who were willing to pay rent on time.
19 I now return to what happened during the hearing before this Court. The plaintiff seemed to be either unaware of or unwilling to accept the narrowness of jurisdiction had by this Court in relation to the disturbing of the decision by the Tribunal. What it could look at was restricted to what was placed before the Tribunal. The role of the Court was either one of review or appeal. It could not conduct a fresh hearing on the merits.
20 The plaintiff addressed the Court repetitiously and at some considerable length on his personal circumstances rather than deal with matters that may attract the jurisdiction of this Court. The Court's power to intervene in this case was restricted to a demonstration of either a material denial of procedural fairness or a material error relating to the deciding of a question with respect to a matter of law. In this case, it follows from what has been earlier said that neither of those matters were made out. It may be also added that it would have been futile to attempt to do so, having regard to the material before the court.
21 It may be that the plaintiff and his family have been the victims of unfortunate events and that he suffers from serious medical problems. Be that as it may, these matters do not give this Court an entitlement to disturb the decision of the Tribunal. It may be further added that the Tribunal considered what he said about his medical problems and decided the case on the evidence that was placed before it. The findings on these matters cannot be disturbed.
22 I shall now deal briefly with the various other matters that were thrown up either by the plaintiff's process or what was said during argument. In considering these matters, I have carefully read what was recorded in the transcript.
23 I have earlier set out what was recorded on p 28 of the transcript. The plaintiff contends that Mr Tomkins committed perjury. This is a very serious allegation and should not be lightly made. In my view, a reading of the transcript does not support that contention.
24 His process perhaps suggests that this Court should either receive or provide to him copies of the housing file and doctors' letters of serious medical conditions. As earlier mentioned, the Court is not in a position to receive that material. It is not empowered to require the first defendant to provide any such material to the plaintiff. If he had intended to rely on any of it, he should have earlier obtained it and placed it before the Tribunal.
25 The plaintiff also relied on allegations that the proceedings were part-heard before another Tribunal member and that the Tribunal member who heard the proceedings was biased.
26 There was no material before this Court to support the allegation that another Tribunal member was part-heard. In any event, even if that had been the case, I am not persuaded that it assists the plaintiff with these proceedings. He was given a full and fresh hearing by the Tribunal member.
27 It was said by the plaintiff both in the Tribunal sittings and in this Court that the Tribunal member had earlier made up his mind to find in favour of the first defendant before the giving of his decision. As earlier mentioned, I have carefully read the transcript. In my view, the transcript does not support such an allegation. I am not satisfied that there was any denial of procedural fairness.
28 Before concluding this judgment, I should mention two other matters that were raised repeatedly by the plaintiff.
29 One of them concerned his complaints as to the unsuitability of the premises. It seemed to be associated with allegations of breaches on the part of the first defendant. I should further add that such breaches as alleged were not the subject of evidence before the Tribunal.
30 One allegation was that there was breach because the premises were not medically ready for him when he took occupation. He contended that the premises were unsuitable for a person of his size. He also complained about the bad condition of the premises (inter alia, it was termite ridden and should be knocked down). He further complained that such condition was a cause of certain of his present medical problems.
31 Whilst these matters do not assist the plaintiff in the present case, if they are founded in fact, it might be thought surprising that he has so desperately resisted the termination of his occupancy of the premises.
32 The other matter concerned payment of arrears. It was said from the bar table that since the decision of the Tribunal the amount of the arrears has been reduced (it was said to be reduced to an order of $900). If this be the case, whilst any payments reduce the plaintiff's indebtedness to the first defendant, they do not bring about an entitlement to a disturbing of the decision. Subsequently arising matters of reductions in arrears and entitlement to remain in occupation are matters that have to be dealt with by and between the plaintiff and the first defendant.
33 In the circumstances, the plaintiff has failed to discharge the onus of demonstrating an entitlement to relief.
34 The proceedings are dismissed. The plaintiff is to pay the costs of the proceedings. Because of the jurisdictional limitations of s 67 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005, any questions of stay will have to be dealt with by a Judge.