EVM v EJV [2025] SACAT 66

The applicant claimed that over a period of years, the respondent, or persons at her property, had interfered with his reasonable peace, comfort or privacy by:

• sending a high volume of projectiles into his property, damaging his property and creating a safety hazard for his family;
• lighting fires at her property on a regular basis, causing smoke to come onto his property which had a significant adverse impact on the health of his family;
• shining lights into his property adversely impacting his family's quality of life - for example, their ability to sleep;
• invading his privacy with security cameras and a drone;
• targeting him with rude, abusive and threatening language.

On review, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review to dismiss the application and concluded that the evidence did not establish on the balance of probabilities that the respondent had caused or permitted the conduct complained of, to an extent which breached the applicant's reasonable peace, comfort or privacy. In doing so, the Tribunal observed that the quality of the video evidence on which the applicant sought to rely was poor. The Tribunal gave weight to the following factors:

• the fact that the applicant had made similar claims of disruptive behaviour against other neighbours;
• the evidence of the landlord that no other neighbours had complained to them about the disruptive conduct of the respondent;
• the fact that other than 2 incidents which were acknowledged by the tenant, there had been no criminal charges, prosecution or penalties applied by any authorities.

In the course of dealing with the application, the Tribunal dealt with various procedural issues including:

• a claim for compensation by the applicant (which the Tribunal found was beyond the power of the Tribunal to deal with);
• a claim about a breach of duty of care the applicant said was owed to him by the Tribunal;
• the extent to which it was reasonable to permit additional evidence in the course of the review; and
• Section 71 of the RTA - the Tribunal stated that this provision does not create any additional rights for the applicant.

Internal review - Residential Tenancy - Interested person application - Tenant caused or permitted - Interference with reasonable peace, comfort or privacy - Exceptional circumstances

Residential Tenancies Act 1995 ss 71, 90, 110

South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 s 70

CLG v LKM & Anor [2024] SACAT 38

Re AKS [2016] SACAT 19

This is an edited version of the Tribunal's decision pursuant to s 60 of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013. Some of the parties and participants in these proceedings have been de-identified in accordance with the Tribunal's anonymisation policy. Other facts and details that may lead to the identification of any person may have also been anonymised or omitted. These changes do not affect the Tribunal's decision or its reasons for decision.

1. This is an application for the internal review of an order made by the Tribunal on 15 August 2024 in matter number 2024/SH003986 (the original Order).
2. In the original Order, the Tribunal dealt with an application by the applicant, EVM and his mother, JUW, seeking an order to terminate the tenancy of the respondent EJV.
3. The first applicant, EVM, is a neighbour of the respondent, EJV. He says that the respondent is responsible for disruptive conduct at her property which has interfered with the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of him (and his family), and therefore, the respondent's tenancy should be terminated. The applicant's original application to the Tribunal was made under section 90 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1995 (the RTA).
4. In the original Order, the Tribunal dismissed the application. The applicant disagrees with the original Order and he has applied for an internal review under section 70 of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (the SACAT Act).

1. For the reasons outlined in my directions of 14 October 2024, I consider that the parties to this application are EVM as the applicant (JUW is EVM's mother, and she was an applicant in the original matter, but does not reside at his house); and EJV as the respondent (ROH lives at EJV's property and he was named as a respondent in the original proceedings, but he is not a tenant named on the tenancy agreement).
2. During the original proceedings, and in these proceedings, JUW acted as a support person and witness for the applicant. ROH performed the same function for the respondent.
3. The respondent's landlord is Unity Housing (Unity). Section 90 RTA provides that if an application is made under that provision to terminate a person's tenancy, and that application is not made by the landlord, then the Tribunal must seek the views of the landlord about the application. In the original hearing process, Unity stated that they did not support EVM's application. Their position was the same in the internal review process. I consider that they are an interested party in this matter.

1. In the directions I made on 14 October 2024, I directed for confidentiality orders to apply under section 60 SACAT Act. Those orders prohibit the publication of the names of EVM and JUW or anything which might tend to identify them. Those orders continue until further order.

1. The applicant lodged multiple documents and submissions in the original matter. He has lodged multiple documents and lengthy submissions in support of his application for review.
2. On 14 October 2024, I issued directions for each party to lodge submissions to be no more than 20 pages long.
3. The applicant lodged submissions which are 46 pages long. Despite the fact that his submissions exceed the limit I prescribed, I will allow them.
4. In addition, I will take into account written submissions the applicant handed up at the final hearing, which he used to make his oral submissions.

1. The applicant sought to have a large volume of additional evidence admitted in the review process:
   • 37 documents lodged on 17 September 2024;
   • 15 documents lodged on 15 November 2024;
   • A USB with further video footage which was not viewed at the original hearing.

I have listed the lodged documents in a schedule annexed to this decision.

1. Although the Tribunal has a discretion to admit fresh evidence in the course of an internal review, that is a discretion that should be exercised with caution.[1] There was a discussion about this issue in the directions hearing of 14 October 2024 as a result of which I made the following directions:
   1. At today's hearing there was some discussion about the extent to which the Tribunal will allow fresh evidence at the review hearing. The primary purpose of a review hearing is to review the original Order on the basis of the evidence available at the time the original Order was made. Although the Tribunal has a discretion to admit fresh evidence, it would not be appropriate to do so where that would involve a substantial departure from the evidence available in the original hearing process.
   2. Although the Tribunal may allow additional evidence to be produced in the review hearing, that discretion is exercised cautiously and generally, the Tribunal would not permit the introduction of fresh evidence which could have been produced at the original hearing.
   3. Therefore, if any party wishes for the Tribunal to take into account fresh evidence in the review process, that party should make a written request for that to occur (which must be no more than 5 pages long), and they must provide a copy of the evidence to the Tribunal. This issue will be dealt with as a preliminary issue at the full hearing.

1. The applicant said that he was not given a fair opportunity to show all of his video and photographic evidence in the original hearings, and there is further video evidence he wishes to submit in the course of the review.
2. Senior Member McEvoy stated in the original Order that the applicant's case took a day and a half, and the Tribunal watched hours of excerpts from his CCTV footage.[2] Senior Member McEvoy states that she has taken into account all of the evidence provided by the applicant and although she offered him the opportunity to provide the video footage on USB, he did not do so.[3]
3. Therefore, I do not accept that the applicant was not provided with a sufficient opportunity to provide video and photographic evidence in support of his case in the original hearing process and I will not allow him to submit further video and photographic evidence in the course of the review.

1. In summary the additional evidence provided by the applicant in the review process is:

a) further evidence about disruptive conduct which has occurred both before and after the original hearings; > > b) further evidence to rebut evidence provided in the original hearing process to which he did not have a sufficient opportunity to respond in that process; > > c) further evidence about credibility - evidence such as searches of court records about the respondent's witnesses and statements about his good character from other neighbours.

2. The applicant submitted that he should be permitted to introduce this additional evidence in the review hearing because otherwise he would be denied procedural fairness, and he would not be given a fair opportunity to clear his name. The applicant submitted that the additional evidence is compelling and will establish that the original Order is not the correct or preferable order.
3. As I stated in my directions, the primary purpose of an internal review is to determine whether the decision under review (the original Order) is the correct or preferable order on the basis of the evidence available at the time. Accordingly, evidence relating to events which have occurred after the original hearings should not be taken into account; and any fresh evidence relating to events which occurred before the original hearings, should not be submitted now - unless fresh evidence has emerged after the hearing which was not readily available in the original hearing process. In that case it may be appropriate to take that into account.
4. I have reviewed the additional evidence provided by the applicant. Some of the evidence provided by him in the course of the review appears to be evidence which was already provided in the original hearing process - that evidence can be taken into account on that basis and without the need to be re-submitted in the course of the review.
5. On the basis of my observations above, I will not take into account the following additional material submitted by the applicant (unless it is on the original file):

a) The statements or statutory declarations provided by the gardener and others about disruptive conduct at the respondent's property[4] - evidence about events occurring before the original hearings, should have been provided to the Tribunal before those hearings,[5] evidence about events occurring after the original hearings is not appropriate to take into account in the course of the review other than as part of a submission by the applicant that the disruptive conduct continues.[6] > > b) Statements or statutory declarations which are intended to be supportive of the applicant or to establish that he is a person of good character - this information should have been provided in the original hearing process.[7]

1. The extracts from court records[8] other than anything directly relevant to the issues in dispute and which is agreed (such as ROH's conviction for lighting a fire).

d) Any information about the fencing/flooding/snail bait dispute between the applicant and ZZD and GKK (the residents of number 54)[9] as I do not consider that dispute is relevant to this application. > > e) Any further video or photographic evidence provided by the applicant in the review process except for the USB provided by him of video footage presented to the Tribunal in the original hearing process.[10] > > f) Reviews about Unity (because they are irrelevant to this decision)[11] and the material concerning attempts at mediation (it is unhelpful in this process).[12] > > g) Timelines or chronologies - they should have been provided in the original hearings, particularly if they contain information about events occurring after the original hearings.[13] > > h) Any further evidence about the claim for compensation (for the reasons explained below).[14]

1. Correspondence with the Tribunal.[15]

j) Correspondence between the parties - any correspondence relevant to the dispute should have been lodged before the original hearings, and any correspondence that arose after the original hearings.[16]

6. I will accept the following additional evidence in the course of the review:

a) From the documents lodged on 17 September 2024:

1. Item 4[17] 2. Item 6[18] 3. Item 11[19] 4. Item 13[20] 5. Item 14[21]

b) From the documents lodged on 15 November 2024:

1. Item 1[22]
2. Item 2[23]
3. Item 3[24]
4. Item 9[25]

1. In the course of the review, the applicant sought to introduce evidence in rebuttal of evidence given at the original hearing by a plumber concerning the likelihood of steam coming from the respondent's hot water service. I will not allow this evidence as the applicant obtained it by approaching the owner of the business at a car wash, and recording their conversation without her consent.
2. Also in the course of the review, the applicant sought to provide evidence in rebuttal of evidence given at the original hearing either by way of written statement, or orally, by the respondent's witnesses - NEQ, HYK and ZLD.
3. The applicant said that he did not have a sufficient opportunity to provide evidence or submissions in response to their evidence as he was taken by surprise - he had not been informed that the respondent would produce evidence from those witnesses.
4. I have reviewed the original file (and the documents submitted in the original hearing process). I note that from very early on in that matter, the respondent was clear with the Tribunal about the witnesses she intended to call (being NEQ, HYK and ZLD), but I am unclear whether that information was provided to the applicant.
5. I note that the applicant was provided with NEQ's and HYK's statements, and so he should have anticipated that the respondent would attempt to call them to give evidence at the hearing. Nevertheless, I consider that the additional information he has provided concerning the witnessing of HYK's statement is significant, and I have decided on the basis of that information that it is not appropriate to take into account her statement.
6. I note that ZLD gave evidence on the second day of the hearing in the late morning/early afternoon. I will allow the applicant to respond to that evidence in the course of the review.

1. In the original application process, the applicant sought compensation for the alleged breaches of section 90 RTA. I note that in the original Order, the Tribunal did not order compensation for two reasons. First, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the evidence established that the respondent had caused or permitted conduct at the property which interfered with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the applicant. Second, the Tribunal considered it likely that the applicant was not entitled to pursue such a claim.
2. Section 110(1)(c) RTA empowers the Tribunal to make an order for compensation, but in the context of a dispute between a landlord and tenant or a rooming house proprietor and resident. Therefore, I agree with Senior Member McEvoy that the applicant is not able to bring an application for compensation against the respondent in this Tribunal. If he wishes to pursue a claim for compensation, he needs to do so through the courts.

The claim that the property is being used for an illegal purpose

1. In the original application process, the applicant sought to rely on an argument that the property was being used for an illegal purpose.[26] As I explained in the directions hearing, that provision is properly used where the conduct is clearly criminal - for example, the manufacture or trafficking of drugs, or prostitution. In the circumstances of this matter, I consider that section 90(1)(a) RTA is not applicable.

1. I note that there was some discussion of section 71 RTA in the original hearing process. This does not help the applicant in making his application. Section 71 RTA simply imposes obligations on a tenant for which section 90 RTA gives a landlord or interested person a right to make an application to the Tribunal, if there is a breach of those obligations. In other words, the obligations under section 71 RTA create the basis for an application under section 90 RTA. The provision does not create separate rights.

1. In his submissions, the applicant has stated that the Tribunal has a duty of care to him and his family.[27] This is a misunderstanding. The Tribunal must make a determination about the application before it according to the law and on the basis of the evidence. The Tribunal must carry out its decision-making process in accordance with the principles stated in the SACAT Act and according to the principles of procedural fairness. The concept of a duty of care arises in the area of negligence. It is not appropriate or applicable in the context of decision making by a Tribunal.

1. During the original hearing process, there were references to a dispute between the applicant and ZZD and GKK.[28] At the time, they were both residents of the property at number 54 (ie they were neighbours of the respondent). The dispute concerned flooding from the watering system of ZZD and GKK, and allegations about snail bait coming into the property of the applicant.
2. I do not consider that dispute itself is relevant to this application as it does not involve conduct caused or permitted by the respondent at her property. However, in broad terms, the relationship between the applicant and his neighbours may be relevant to the exercise of the Tribunal's discretion and I will discuss that issue later.
3. I consider it was appropriate for ZLD (the son of ZZD and GKK) to give his evidence about facts of which he was aware and which are relevant to EVM's application.

1. The applicant, EVM, lives at his property at Parafield Gardens with his wife and children. His mother JUW, is a regular visitor to his home. The applicant has lived at the property for seven years. He is an owner/occupier of his house.
2. The respondent lives at her property at number 52 with ROH. WMK (her son) is a regular visitor to her home. The respondent is a tenant in her property and the landlord is Unity. She has lived at her property for 20 years.
3. A corner of the respondent's back yard meets the yard of the applicant's property.
4. In general terms, the applicant claims that since about November 2022, the conduct of members of the respondent's household or regular visitors to her property, have seriously interfered with the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of him and his family at their property (although there was some disruptive conduct earlier and in particular an incident of assault in 2020). In particular:
   • A high volume of projectiles are being sent into his property from the respondent's property, those projectiles are damaging his property and creating a safety hazard for his family;
   • Fires are being lit at the respondent's property on a regular basis, the fires cause smoke which comes onto his property and the smoke has had a significant adverse impact on the health of his family;
   • Lights from the respondent's property are regularly shining into his property and this is adversely impacting on his family's quality of life - for example, their ability to sleep;
   • He and his family are under surveillance by security cameras erected on the respondent's property and by their use of a drone and this is an invasion of their right to privacy;
   • Persons at the respondent's property have used rude, abusive and threatening language towards him and his family.
5. The respondent denies the allegations made against her by the applicant. She says that other than a couple of isolated incidents - which are admitted - the allegations are untrue. The respondent says that the applicant's claims against her are similar to claims he has made against other neighbours in the past.
6. Both parties claim that they are well liked by their neighbours.
7. Unity does not support the application. Unity's position is that the respondent's tenancy should not be terminated.

1. An application for internal review is made under section 70 SACAT Act. Section 70 SACAT Act requires that on review, the Tribunal must make the correct or preferable decision taking into account the evidence available to the Tribunal at the original hearing, giving appropriate weight to the original Order and taking into account any other evidence which the Tribunal considers is relevant and appropriate to take into account in the review hearing. An application for review necessarily includes an application for leave.
2. Section 90 RTA relevantly states:

(1) The Tribunal may, on application by an interested person, terminate a residential tenancy and make an order for possession of the premises if it is satisfied that the tenant has -

(c) caused or permitted an interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of another person who resides in the immediate vicinity of the premises.

(2) If the Tribunal terminates a tenancy and makes an order for possession under this section -

(a) the Tribunal must specify the day as from which the order will operate, being not more than 28 days after the day on which the orders are made; and

(b) the Tribunal may order the landlord -

(i) to take such action as is specified in the order for the purpose of taking possession of the premises; and

(ii) not to permit the tenant to occupy the premises (whether as a tenant or otherwise) for a specified period or until further order (and any agreement entered into in contravention of such an order is void).

(2a) However [where the application is not made by the landlord] -

(a) the Tribunal must not make an order under this section unless the landlord has been given a reasonable opportunity to be heard in relation to the matter; and

(b) if the landlord objects to the making of an order under this section, the Tribunal must not make an order unless the Tribunal is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist justifying the making of the order in any event.

1. There is no dispute that the applicant is an interested person, for the purposes of section 90 RTA (and so he was entitled to make the original application).

1. In the original hearing process, Unity's position was that they did not support EVM's application, and this position remained the same in the review process.
2. The applicant says that this position is unreasonable, and he has been denied procedural fairness because he has not had a proper opportunity to question Unity about the basis of their decision.[29] He has also said that disproportionate weight was given to the position of Unity.[30]
3. This position misunderstands the role of the landlord in an application made by a neighbour under section 90 RTA. Section 90 RTA requires that in such a matter, the Tribunal must enquire of the landlord as to their attitude to the application. It is not open to the applicant or the Tribunal to challenge the reasonableness of the landlord's position. If an applicant considers the landlord's position to be unreasonable, then the applicant must pursue any legal rights in the courts (and not under the RTA).[31]
4. As Unity opposes EVM's application, this means that he must establish that there are exceptional circumstances which justify an order terminating the tenancy (section 90(2a)(b) RTA).
5. When dealing with any application to terminate a tenancy under section 90 RTA, the Tribunal's decision-making process will occur in two parts:
   • First, does the evidence establish on the balance of probabilities that there has been disruptive conduct at the respondent tenant's property which has interfered with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of their neighbour; and if so -
   • In all the circumstances of the matter, should the tenancy be terminated?
6. However, when dealing with an application by a neighbour seeking an order for termination under section 90 RTA, where the landlord does not support the application, the applicant must also establish that there are exceptional circumstances which warrant an order for termination being made. I consider the test of exceptional circumstances, should apply to both aspects of the decision.[32]
7. In the original Order, Senior Member McEvoy found that the evidence did not establish on the balance of probabilities that the respondent had caused or permitted conduct at her property which had resulted in an interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the applicant (or members of his household),[33] and she dismissed the application.
8. Therefore, in considering EVM's application for review and in determining whether the original Order to dismiss his application, is the correct or preferable order, I must consider the following issues:

a) (i) Does the evidence establish on the balance of probabilities that the respondent has caused or permitted conduct at her property which has resulted in an interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the applicant?

(ii) If so, is the conduct sufficiently serious as to constitute exceptional circumstances?

b) Should the tenancy be terminated, and if so, what are the exceptional circumstances which justify that decision?

c) If the tenancy is to be terminated, should the Tribunal make any other order to require the landlord to take steps to take possession of the property?

The evidence and submissions upon which this decision is made

1. In making this decision, I have taken into account the evidence and submissions made in the original hearings, I have taken into account the evidence before the Tribunal in the original hearing process, and I have taken into account the additional evidence which I have admitted in the course of the review. I have also taken into account the parties' written submissions made in the course of the review in the manner described above. Merely because I have not referred to a particular item of evidence or submission, or I have referred to it in a brief manner, does not mean that I have not taken it into account, or that I have given it little weight.

Question 1a)(i) Does the evidence establish on the balance of probabilities that the respondent has caused or permitted conduct at her property which has resulted in an interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the applicant?

1. In his oral and written submissions, the applicant submitted that there is ample evidence in support of a finding that the respondent has caused or permitted conduct at her property which has resulted in an interference with his reasonable peace, comfort or privacy and the original Order is not correct in failing to make a finding to that effect.
2. The evidence on which the applicant relied can be broadly divided into the following categories:
   • Projectiles being directed into his property from persons at the respondent's property;
   • Fires being lit at the respondent's property and causing smoke which comes into his property;
   • Lights being shone into his property from a person at the respondent's property;
   • An invasion of the right to privacy of the applicant (and his family) due to the installation of security cameras at the respondent's property and the use of a drone by someone at her property to observe persons at the applicant's property;
   • Harassment such as rude, threatening and abusive behaviour from persons at the respondent's property being directed towards persons at the applicant's property.
3. The applicant's position is that this conduct occurs frequently, and its impact on his family is significant.[34] His response to the evidence and submissions of the respondent and ROH to the effect that his application against them is merely another example of his claims against his neighbours, and his attempts to get his neighbours (including them) evicted; was that those of his neighbours who supported the respondent and ROH were in collusion with them.[35]

1. In brief, the applicant submitted that since November 2022, there have been multiple projectiles coming onto their property from the respondent's property. In his evidence at the original hearing, the applicant's father said that he had witnessed projectiles being sent into the applicant's property from the respondent's property on about 1,500 occasions[36] (from the video footage). In his written submissions, the applicant said that there had been over 3,000 items thrown.[37] He said that the items thrown included rocks, golf balls, eggs, shards of glass, fruit and vegetables, paint and poisonous items. He said that there had been Molotov cocktails thrown on occasion. Because of the projectile throwing, the applicant's evidence was that he had set up netting to protect their house. He said that the projectiles had damaged his property, and had caused him and his family physical and psychological harm.[38]
2. The applicant provided video evidence, photographic evidence, documentary evidence (for example, logs of items thrown) and evidence of witnesses in support of his submissions about this issue.

a) The video, audio and photographic evidence provided at the original hearing

1. At the original hearing, the applicant played approximately 2.5 hours of video recordings which he submitted establishes that projectiles were being thrown into his property from the respondent's property on a regular basis. He also referred to a noise which he said could be detected from the video evidence which establishes that at least some of the time, the projectiles were being thrown into his property with the aid of a catapult. The applicant referred to the logs which were provided to explain the video recordings, and also to substantiate the video evidence.
2. The applicant said that the photographic evidence establishes:
   • The debris remaining at his property from the projectiles (eg broken eggshells, rocks);
   • Persons at the respondent's property had lopped branches from a tree to make throwing projectiles at his property easier;[39]
   • The damage caused to his house by the projectiles.

The applicant said that audio recordings establish:

• That projectiles were being thrown at a time when one of his children was crying;
• That police were at his property on one occasion when projectiles were being thrown and he was speaking to his parents on the phone - the police said it was too dangerous for them to stay.[40] [41]

b) Oral evidence of the witnesses at the original hearing

1. At the original hearing, the applicant's father gave evidence that:
   • he monitors the applicant's CCTV system, and he had witnessed live on more than 1,500 occasions, incidents of projectiles originating from the respondent's property and being sent into the applicant's property since November 2022;[42]
   • the various forms of projectile included petrol bombs in glass bottles, paint bottles, multiple golf balls, rocks, glass, eggs and fruit;
   • he had heard a sound like a sling-shot or catapult when the applicant's house was being subject to projectiles.[43]

Evidence of the contractor who undertakes building and pest control inspections regularly at the applicant's property

1. At the original hearing,[44] the contractor gave evidence that:
   • he first attended at the applicant's property in 2019 and had not observed any damage likely to be attributable to projectiles at that time, but when he attended in 2022, he noticed damage to the air compressor for the air conditioner, and impact marks on brickwork on the back wall;
   • when he went to the property in early 2023, he found further damage consistent with damage from projectiles including more damage to the air conditioning unit, damage to downpipes, further damage to the back wall, gouge marks and cracking of the solar panels, damaged pot plants and garden statues; and he saw that the applicant had erected netting to try to protect his property and that netting had been damaged. He observed significant damage to roof tiles. He also saw the residue from eggs having been thrown at the house;[45]
   • he went back in June 2023 and found significant damage to the roof tiles as a result of which light could be seen through some of the damaged tiles in the ceiling cavity;
   • one of the applicant's children refused to go into the yard at that point, because of the danger from the projectiles.[46]

1. The applicant brought some of the items that he said had been used as projectiles, to the original hearings.

1. The applicant provided other documentary evidence he had provided for example, statutory declarations including a statutory declaration made by his wife.
2. The applicant also relied on letters and emails which had been sent from the Council for example, a letter of 1 July 2024 in which the Council writes to the occupants of number 52 (the respondent) relevantly stating that:
   • Allegations have been made about projectiles emanating from their property and littering the applicant's property;
   • The photographic and video images provided to the council suggest that this has occurred on multiple occasions and is adversely impacting on the occupants of the applicant's property;
   • The Council is considering issuing a litter abatement notice.

1. In brief, the applicant submitted that since November 2022 until the original hearing (and in the review hearing, he claimed that this conduct was still continuing), there had been multiple fires lit at the respondent's property; the fires had been deliberately lit and as a result significant smoke was regularly coming into the applicant's property. The applicant submitted that the fires were being lit with the intention of the smoke going into his property.
2. The applicant submitted that as a result of the smoke coming into his property regularly from the respondent's property, his family had been extremely unwell, particularly his children.
3. The applicant provided video evidence, documentary evidence (for example, logs of the days on which he said there were fires and smoke at the respondent's property) and evidence of witnesses in support of his submissions about this issue.

a) The video and photographic evidence provided at the original hearing

1. As mentioned above, at the original hearing, the applicant played approximately 2.5 hours of video recordings. As well as establishing that projectiles were regularly coming into his property from EJV's property, he submitted that the video footage establishes that there is smoke regularly coming into his property from the fires which are lit in EJV's property.
2. The applicant referred to the logs which had been kept by the applicant's father concerning the occasions on which smoke could be seen coming from the respondent's property.
3. The applicant referred to the photos which had been taken which show burnt sections of ground at the property.
4. The applicant referred to the photos which show that the shed in the back of the respondent's yard had two sections of roofing material removed, and he submitted that those panels had been left off so that persons at the respondent's property could light fires in the shed to emit smoke which would then come onto his property.[47]

1. The applicant referred to the fact that ROH had been found guilty of lighting a fire in a shed at the respondent's property on 3 March 2023.
2. The applicant also relied on letters and emails which had been sent from the Council for example, a letter of 1 July 2024 in which the Council writes to the occupants of number 52 stating that:
   • Allegations have been made about fires and smoke, emanating from their property and creating a nuisance for the occupants of the applicant's property;
   • The photographic and video images provided to the Council suggest that there has been back yard burning on multiple occasions at the respondent's property resulting in the emission of smoke which has adversely impacted on the neighbours;
   • The Council intends to issue an abatement notice to the occupants of the respondent's property concerning the smoke.
3. In the original hearing process, evidence was produced to the effect that one explanation for the smoke in the vicinity of the applicant's property, could be slow combustion heaters in properties nearby. In the review hearing, the applicant produced an email from the Council stating that as far as they (the author of the email) were concerned, they did not know of any properties close to the applicant's property, which had a combustion heater.
4. The applicant relied on his wife's statutory declaration. In that document, his wife states:
   • The applicant, their child and another family member were "taken away having difficulties breathing due to the smoke";
   • Her child became so ill after inhaling smoke that she thought the child would die.
5. The applicant provided various medical reports in support of his submission that members of his household had become unwell due to smoke inhalation. The applicant provided articles to the Tribunal about the dangers of inhaling smoke, he stated that his child had been hospitalised with pneumonia in April 2024, and had been in hospital for a number of days. The applicant said this was because of the smoke from fires lit at EJV's property.[48]

1. The applicant also relied on the video evidence concerning his claims about lights being shone into his house from EJV's property. He said that bright lights were shone into his property from EJV's property on multiple occasions.[49]
2. In the original hearing, the applicant said that people at the respondent's property had been shining high powered illegal lasers at their house, at their windows, and disrupting the reasonable peace and quiet enjoyment of their property by doing so.[50]

1. In the original hearing, the applicant said that persons at the respondent's property were recording members of his household on their mobile phones, and by a drone which they had flown over his property multiple times, and also taking photos (or otherwise monitoring them) with security cameras.[51]
2. The applicant referred to footage from his video cameras in which he says that WMK can be seen staring into his yard, as evidence of stalking behaviour.[52]
3. He relied on video evidence to show that the drone had been flown over his property from the respondent's property.
4. The applicant referred to a visit from the police to the respondent's property in which the police said that security cameras at her property were inappropriately placed so that they were pointed into his yard. He said that the police informed the respondent and ROH that the cameras had to be removed and he relied on a report from police dated 10 September 2024 in support of this submission.
5. The applicant also referred to his wife's statutory declaration in which she states that:
   • The tenants keep filming their household on mobile phones;
   • They also fly drones over their house;

And as a result of those actions, she does not feel safe at their house.

1. In the original hearing, the applicant submitted that members of the respondent's household had subjected him and his family to "... ongoing physical attacks, verbal abuse and threats to our lives ..."[53]
2. In particular, he referred to a statement made by WMK in which he said "Don't get too comfortable in Parafield Gardens".[54] The applicant also referred to a sign which had been erected at the respondent's property for about a week which said "[EVM] u r not right in the head."
3. In the review hearing, the applicant referred to profanities that had been used by WMK in the presence of his children.

The evidence and submissions of the respondent

1. In general terms, the respondent and ROH denied all of the allegations made against them by the applicant other than an incident in 2023 in which ROH said that he had lit a fire in the shed, and an incident in 2020 when there was an altercation between ROH and the applicant about the sign which had only been erected for a week.
2. The respondent and ROH said that the applicant's claims against them were all part of a pattern of behaviour of the applicant in trying to have his neighbours evicted. They said that the applicant had made virtually identical claims against NEQ, who was a tenant who formerly resided at number 17 (ie adjacent to the applicant) from December 2020 until 2023 and he had made similar claims against the tenant who had lived at that property before NEQ.
3. The respondent and ROH relied on documentary evidence in support of their position. They relied on that documentary evidence in relation to all aspects of the applicant's claims. The documentary evidence on which the respondent and ROH relied was a statutory declaration of NEQ dated 12 July 2024, a written statement made by HYK[55] and a letter written to the applicant's solicitor by the solicitor for the landlord of NEQ. That letter is dated 8 January 2024. For the reasons explained above, I will not take into account HYK's written statement. They also sought to rely on an unsigned written statement of ZZD. For the reasons given below, I will not take that into account.
4. In her statutory declaration, NEQ states amongst other things:

"[EVM] accused myself and my children of filming his children, burning fires and throwing rocks, we had over 50 police attendances because of his false accusations. We were never charged with any offence as we did nothing. [EVM] then took us to SACAT and we had over 50 false allegations against our names also he provided false stat decs ... The police state that they have over 200 calls from [EVM] complaining about us, and the police watched hundreds of hours of his cctv footage and the result was no evidence of us doing anything wrong. No rocks were thrown yet [EVM] claims that over one thousand rocks thrown ...The previous tenants left prematurely as they were a young couple and had enough ...[EVM] claimed they were throwing rocks and burning fires as high as the roof ..."

5. The letter written by NEQ's landlord's solicitor (I will refer to this as the solicitor's letter) refers to allegations made by the applicant against NEQ, and also to allegations made by the applicant against a former tenant of the landlord; and in particular, it refers to a letter of 11 July 2023 written by the applicant's solicitor in which he makes various claims against NEQ (and her household) including physical attacks, verbal abuse, threats, shining bright lights into his house, lighting fires, throwing projectiles into the applicant's property and stalking and carrying out surveillance of him and members of his family. [56]
6. The solicitor's letter also refers to multiple complaints made by NEQ to her landlord about the conduct of the applicant including[57] filming and photographing members of her household, making false allegations to police and calling them regularly, yelling and abusing NEQ and members of her household. The letter refers to complaints made to the landlord about the applicant by the tenants prior to NEQ
7. The solicitor's letter also refers to allegations made to NEQ's landlord by the applicant about other neighbours.[58]

1. In summary, the respondent and ROH denied that anyone at the respondent's property had been throwing projectiles into the applicant's property[59]. They challenged the authenticity of the video recordings. They claimed that the allegations against them were spurious.
2. In response to a reference by the applicant in the review hearing to WMK having built a catapult for that purpose,[60] WMK said that he was being sarcastic with that comment and he emphatically denied that he had made a catapult to throw rocks into the applicant's property.
3. In addition to the evidence of NEQ, the respondent and ROH relied on the evidence of ZLD. ZLD gave oral evidence at the original hearing. He said that he is the sole carer for his elderly parents whose back yard shares a common boundary with the yard of the applicant. ZLD said that he is at his parents' property 4 - 5 days a week and he regularly stays overnight a couple of nights a week. They are elderly and both had cancer at the time of the original hearings.[61] He said that he has never noticed projectiles coming from ROH and the respondent's property.
4. The respondent and ROH said that although police have attended at their property a number of times, they have never been charged in relation to this issue. They said that despite the Council's letter about the litter abatement notice, they have never received any such notice, and no penalty has been applied to them by any authority in relation to this aspect of the applicant's claims.

The respondent's response about the fires and smoke

1. In summary, other than the incident which occurred on 3 March 2023, and which ROH admitted, the respondent and ROH denied that fires were being lit at their property (either deliberately or otherwise) to cause smoke which was moving into the applicant's property. They denied the allegations that they had removed roofing panels from their shed roof so that they could light fires so that the smoke would go onto the applicant's property. At the review hearing, they said that the roof panels had been put back on the shed.
2. The respondent and ROH said that they considered that on some occasions, the smoke was actually steam coming from their hot water service. They also said that they thought it was likely there were fires of one kind or another in the general area, which might be partly responsible for the smoke.
3. The respondent and ROH said that although police have attended at their property a number of times, they have never been charged in relation to this issue (apart from the one incident which is agreed). They said that despite the Council's letter about the abatement notice concerning the smoke, they have never received any such notice, and no penalty has been applied to them by any authority in relation to this aspect of the applicant's claims.
4. The respondent and ROH also relied on the evidence of ZLD. ZLD gave oral evidence at the original hearing. He said that he has never noticed them lighting fires or smoke coming from their property.

1. ROH and the respondent denied the applicant's claims that someone at their property had been shining lights into his property.
2. In the review hearing, WMK said that he is an amateur astronomer. He said that he regularly visits the respondent's property (he lives nearby), and he has a large telescope which he sometimes uses for this hobby, and at times, he uses a bright light to assist with it. But he denied using any light to shine it into the applicant's property.
3. ROH and the respondent submitted that some of the video footage shown by the applicant in relation to this issue, can be explained as the headlights of cars and this submission was supported by Unity.[62]

1. ROH and the respondent denied the allegations concerning the drone and that they had been recording members of the applicant's household on their mobile phones.
2. In the review hearing, ROH acknowledged that he had been required to remove security cameras by the police. He said that this had been done and he also said that before the cameras were removed, they had not been filming in any event.

1. In essence, the respondent and ROH denied the allegations (except for the incident which occurred in 2020, and the sign, which they said was taken down after a week). They referred to the evidence of ZLD and the statutory declaration of NEQ about the rude, abusive and threatening behaviour of the applicant. The respondent and ROH also relied on the evidence of ZLD in the original hearing.

1. Senior Member McEvoy made the following determinations about the evidence:

Senior Member McEvoy found on balance, it is likely that some projectiles have been thrown at the applicant's property and it is likely that some of them came from the respondent's property; however, she did not accept that the evidence established this had occurred with the frequency claimed by the applicant and she did not accept that all the damage shown by him had been caused by projectiles from the respondent's property.[63] Senior Member McEvoy found:

• it was not possible to identify the exact nature of the projectiles from the CCTV footage;
  1. even accepting that there has been some damage to the applicant's property, photos of the damage and photos of the items claimed by him to be projectiles having been sent to his property, do not necessarily establish that projectiles coming from the respondent's property have caused the damage.[64]

In the original Order, Senior Member McEvoy found that she was not satisfied that the evidence provided by the applicant established that there have been fires at the respondent's property.[65] She said that:

• on some occasions, she considered the "smoke" was steam or vapour from a hot water service;
  1. she could not be satisfied from the evidence that fires were being lit at the respondent's property, causing smoke to drift into the applicant's property;[66]
  2. the evidence did not establish a connection between the illnesses of the applicant's family members, and fires being lit at the respondent's property;[67]

In the original Order, Senior Member McEvoy said that she was not satisfied that the evidence established that lights had been shone into the windows of the applicant's property from someone at the respondent's property.[68]

1. In reaching a decision about the application, Senior Member McEvoy said that she was not satisfied on an objective assessment of the evidence on the balance of probabilities, that the respondent had caused or permitted an interference with the reasonable peace, comfort and privacy of the applicant.
2. In making her final determination, Senior Member McEvoy referred to the evidence provided by the respondent and ROH about the applicant's complaints against other neighbours and she said[69]:

"... [the evidence] suggests that the allegations [made by EVM] may be significantly exaggerated, or even fabricated, by [EVM]. It seems unusual and unlikely that [EVM] would have the misfortune that all his neighbours (next door, to the rear, and diagonally behind him) engaged in the same forms of antisocial behaviour toward him, and that he would have similar complaints about their extreme and harassing conduct. At the same time, similar complaints are made against [EVM] by a number of occupants of these premises going back more than three years."

1. Section 70 SACAT Act requires that on review, the Tribunal must give appropriate weight to the decision under review.
2. The applicant said that Senior Member McEvoy's decision in the original Order is incorrect for multiple reasons:

1. As Senior Member McEvoy had found that there was evidence of some projectiles coming from the respondent's property, and there was a fire at her property on at least one occasion, this is sufficient to meet the test under section 90 RTA and accordingly, the correct or preferable decision would be to terminate the respondent's tenancy.[70]

• The original Order failed to give appropriate weight to his evidence - for example,

1. the physical evidence of projectiles brought into the hearing;[71] 2. the photographic evidence which shows the remains of some of the projectiles at his property (for example, egg shells on his roof), some of the larger projectiles (such as rocks) lying on his property, and some of the damage to his property caused by the projectiles (such as the damage to his solar panels and roof);[72] 3. the statutory declaration of his wife;[73] 4. the evidence of the damage to his house;[74] 5. the evidence about his child being too scared to go into the back yard due to the projectiles;[75]

• the information about his family's illnesses arising from smoke.

1. The original Order contained multiple errors of fact.[76]

• The original Order gave too much weight to unreliable evidence: * ZZD's written statement was unsigned, and so should be given little if any weight; * The written statement of HYK was not properly witnessed, and so should not be taken into account.

1. He was denied procedural fairness in the original hearing for example, because he was not given a proper opportunity to question witnesses such as ZLD, or to respond to the evidence of the plumber or the landlord.[77]
2. Most of the issues raised by the applicant will be addressed in the course of my conclusions below, but I make the following comments about particular aspects of his submissions as to the inadequacies of the original Order:

The applicant's submission to the effect that because there was a finding in the original Order of some projectiles coming from the respondent's property and a fire there, then it must follow that he has met the test under section 90 RTA misunderstands the requirements of that provision, as outlined in paragraphs 45-55.

b) The findings in the original Order concerning the facts

It is not possible or appropriate for a Tribunal order to refer to all of the evidence taken into account in making a decision about an application and so merely because there was not a substantial amount of text in the original Order for example, concerning the applicant's wife's statutory declaration, does not mean that document was not taken into account and it does not mean that insufficient weight was given to it. It is for the Tribunal to decide what evidence to refer to in a written decision. Even if there is no reference at all to a particular item of evidence does not necessarily mean it was not taken into account.

Similarly, it does not matter if there is a minor discrepancy in a Tribunal order concerning the facts of a matter provided that any error does not have an impact on the ultimate determination by the Tribunal.

1. Inappropriate weight given to certain evidence

In relation to the statutory declaration of HYK, I accept the statutory declaration of the JP (which was not available in the original hearing process), that she did not witness that document and accordingly I will not accept it into evidence.

I do not consider that the Tribunal should take into account the unsigned statutory declaration of ZZD. Even noting that he was unwell and therefore unable to attend the Tribunal hearing to give evidence himself (and his wife was also unwell and also unable to attend the Tribunal hearing to give evidence), any weight to be given to a document which is unsigned, must be minimal.

**_My conclusions about the evidence concerning Question 1(a)

1. I agree with the finding in the original Order, that the evidence relied on by the applicant, and in particular, the video evidence, does not establish that projectiles have been thrown from the respondent's property into his property with the regularity or seriousness claimed by the applicant. The CCTV footage is not particularly clear - it is taken at a distance, often at night and is vague and grainy.
2. In his submissions, the applicant has stated that the determination in the original Order is inconsistent with the evidence because Senior Member McEvoy referred to the "extensive video footage" and "this contradicts her comments that the attacks were not frequent and sustained".[78] Merely because there is a substantial amount of video footage does not necessarily mean that it establishes that there were frequent or sustained episodes of projectiles coming into the applicant's property from the respondent's property.
3. I consider that the photos and physical evidence of projectiles are largely unhelpful to the applicant's case. The photos are of items which may be projectiles, but the critical issue for him to establish, is that the projectiles were sent into his property by persons at the respondent's property. The photos do not establish that.
4. Similarly, I do not consider that the physical evidence which the applicant brought into the Tribunal, of rocks and other items which he said were projectiles which had been found at his property, is particularly helpful to his case. They only establish that he found those items at his property. They do not establish that someone at the respondent's property threw them into his property.
5. I accept the evidence of the contractor that there seems to be some damage to the roof and possibly the walls of the house which could be explained by projectiles and the photos are useful to establish that. On the other hand, if there had been between 1,500 - 3,000 projectiles thrown, and some of those items were large rocks, I would have expected more damage than the damage shown in the photos.
6. I do not consider that the evidence concerning the applicant's children's fear to go into the backyard assists to establish that persons from the respondent's property are regularly sending projectiles into his property.
7. I do not accept the applicant's evidence that the reaction of police who were at his property on one occasion when projectiles were being thrown, supports his case. He said that the police took no action, and said that they had to leave because the situation was so dangerous. In my view, if there really had been a dangerous situation at his property due to the projectiles, the police would have been obliged to take some action about it.
8. I do not accept the submission of the applicant that persons at the respondent's property had lopped a tree to assist in their throwing of the projectiles.
9. In making an assessment about this aspect of the matter, I consider that the following evidence is particularly significant:

1. The applicant made the same claims against NEQ,[79] when she was living at number 17,[80] there was a common period of about 12 months of NEQ's tenancy and the period over which the applicant was claiming that projectiles were being sent from the respondent's property - I consider it inherently unlikely that projectiles were being sent by two different households into the applicant's property and I do not accept his response that the neighbours were colluding;[81]

• ZLD's statement that he had not seen any projectiles coming from the respondent's property;
  • In the review hearing, Ms Bell (who represented Unity in the hearing), stated that Unity had not received any complaints against the respondent about this issue, from any other neighbours.

10. I consider it is significant that there has been no abatement notice issued, and no prosecution or other action taken by any authority against the respondent or any member of her household about the allegations concerning projectiles from her property and Unity has received no complaints against the respondent about this issue from any neighbours other than the applicant.

1. In my assessment, there has been some fire and smoke from the respondent's property but not to the extent claimed by the applicant and not to the extent to interfere with his reasonable peace and comfort at his property.
2. ROH admitted that he had been foolish and deliberately lit one fire in the shed a while ago. He was prosecuted for that.
3. In the review hearing, the applicant placed weight on the email from the Council that they are not aware of a combustion heater in the immediate vicinity of his property. Even taking that into account, I consider it is likely that someone in the area has a combustion heater, open fire, or (as is reasonably common), from time to time, neighbours use outdoor fires.
4. I accept the evidence of the illness of members of the applicant's household, but I do not accept that the medical evidence concerning the health issues suffered by members of his family, establishes that persons at the respondent's property have lit fires and caused smoke to be at the applicant's property resulting in those issues.
5. I consider that the video footage taken in the early morning, shows steam from the hot water service. I consider that there may have been some smoke from the respondent's bar-b-que, but not to cause the issues complained of by the applicant.[82] I consider it is likely that there are slow combustion fires or other fires in the area.
6. I do not consider that the logs are particularly helpful as they often contain statements of opinion, for example:[83]

"29th June 2024 - Saturday - [Number] 52 Dr. BAD FIRE/SMOKE COVERING OUR HOME AND PROPERTY IN SMOKE. NOTE; Just before the fire/smoke [ROH] was seen coming outside and picking up what appears to be a fire container and playing with hit. The reasonable inference can be made that It was a fire container as a short while later their back door opens and then closes and then smoke is visible coming from that area. > > Someone also snuck out to the shed shortly before the fire/smoke. [ROH] was seen coming out just after the initial fire/smoke. The reasonable inference can be made that the fire failed to properly light the first time. > > In the dark Almost an hour after the fire/smoke started someone came out and shook something violently over the ground (possibly something to do with the fire/smoke)."

7. In making an assessment about this aspect of the matter, I consider that the following evidence is particularly significant:

1. The applicant made the same claims against NEQ when she was living at number 17,[84] there was a common period of about 12 months of NEQ's tenancy and the period over which the applicant was claiming that someone at the respondent's property was lighting fires and causing smoke to come into his property - I consider it inherently unlikely that fires were being lit causing smoke to come into the applicant's property by two different households, and I do not accept the applicant's response that the neighbours were colluding. 2. The applicant made similar claims against the tenants at number 17 before NEQ moved in.[85] 3. ZLD's statement that he had not seen any smoke coming from the respondent's property.[86]

• In the review hearing, Ms Bell stated that Unity had not received any complaints against the respondent about this issue, from any other neighbours.

8. I consider it is significant that (other than the one incident admitted by ROH), there has been no abatement notice issued, and no prosecution or other action taken by any authority against the respondent or any member of her household about the allegations concerning fires and smoke from her property and Unity has received no complaints against the respondent about this issue from any neighbours other than the applicant. This is particularly significant when on the applicant's version of events, at the time of the original hearing, there had been 347 separate incidents of fires at the respondent's property.[87]

1. I agree with the finding in the original Order, that the evidence does not establish that someone has been shining lights into the applicant's property in the manner alleged by him.
2. In his submissions, the applicant states that ROH and WMK acknowledged that they shone a laser light onto his property.[88] This is not an accurate statement of the evidence. ROH stated that this had occurred for "half a second".[89]
3. During the review hearing, WMK said that he was an amateur astronomer and he used a bright light in connection with that activity. This appears to be a likely explanation for some of the applicant's complaints, but other rational explanations offered at the original hearing were car lights.[90]
4. In making an assessment about this aspect of the matter, I consider that the following evidence is particularly significant:

1. The applicant made the same claims against NEQ,[91] when she was living at number 17, there was a common period of about 12 months of NEQ's tenancy and the period over which the applicant was claiming that bright lights were being shone from the respondent's property - I consider it inherently unlikely that bright lights were being shone into the applicant's property from two different households and I do not accept the applicant's response that the neighbours were colluding.[92] 2. ZLD's evidence:[93]

"I did notice on several occasions that the claimant [ie the applicant] was shining either lasers or powerful lights into the cameras over his fence into our back yard trying to, I would assume, to blow out the CCD in the camera, but that didn't work".

• In the review hearing, Ms Bell stated that Unity had not received any complaints against the respondent about this issue, from any other neighbours.

1. I am not satisfied from the evidence that someone at the respondent's property has flown a drone over the applicant's property with a view to taking photos and interfering with the right of privacy of the persons at his property.
2. It appears that the applicant and each of his neighbours have security cameras installed at their property. The applicant has provided a report by police in which they have requested the respondent and ROH to remove their cameras. ROH said he has done so.
3. In making an assessment about this aspect of the matter, I consider that the following evidence is particularly significant:

1. The applicant made similar claims against NEQ (ie about stalking and surveillance),[94] when she was living at number 17;

• The applicant made the same claims against ZZD and GKK but when police attended, they found that their security cameras were lawful;

1. Complaints have been made against the applicant by the tenants before NEQ about the applicant filming and taking photos of members of their household on a regular basis;[95] 2. NEQ also complained to her landlord about the applicant filming and photographing members of her household on a regular basis;[96]

• In the review hearing, Ms Bell stated that Unity had not received any complaints against the respondent about this issue, from any other neighbours.

4. I accept ROH's statement at the review hearing, that he has removed the security camera facing the applicant's property (or disabled it).
5. For the above reasons, I am not satisfied that the evidence establishes the applicant's claims about an invasion of his privacy.

1. In the original hearings, the applicant relied on a comment apparently made by WMK that the applicant should not get too comfortable in the area and he also relied on the derogatory sign that had been erected for a week.
2. In the review hearing, the applicant also referred to WMK using profanities while his children were present. He said that the verbal aggression and threatening language from WMK was detectable on at least one of the audio recordings.
3. I do not accept that the evidence relied on by the applicant establishes that there has been a pattern of persistent rude, threatening and abusive behaviour from persons at the respondent's property, directed at him (and persons at his property).
4. In making an assessment about this aspect of the matter, I consider that the following evidence is particularly significant:

1. The applicant made similar accusations against NEQ and members of her household;[97] 2. The applicant made similar accusations against the tenants at number 17 before NEQ;[98] 3. NEQ complained to her landlord about rude abusive and threatening behaviour by the applicant towards her and members of her household;[99]

• ZLD's evidence that his parents felt harassed by the applicant;
  • Ms Bell's submission in the review hearing, that no complaints had been made against the respondent (or members of her household) to Unity about this issue.

5. I also consider it is significant that other than the incident admitted by ROH,[100] there has been no prosecution or other action taken by any authority against the respondent or any member of her household about the allegations concerning rude, threatening and abusive behaviour.

1. For all of the above reasons, I agree with the determination in the original Order that the evidence does not establish on the balance of probabilities that the respondent has caused or permitted an interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the applicant. This means that it is not necessary for me to proceed with a consideration of the other questions I have referred to above.
2. Accordingly, I consider that the original Order is the correct or preferable order, and I will affirm that decision.

1. The Tribunal grants leave to apply for internal review.

2. The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE LODGED BY THE APPLICANT ON 15 NOVEMBER 2024

1. N52Lav) police report regarding cameras
2. N17BegL) email from lawyer
3. N52Lav) letter from council regarding fire allegations 12 July 2024
4. N52Lav) Roof Damage Report 28.10.2024
5. N17BegK) Stat Dec from neighbour regarding dispute
6. N52Lav) anonymous report of smoke 1.11.2023
7. Unity Housing reviews
8. NAD) Order of events from 10.9.2024 TO 26.10.2024
9. N52Lav) Magistrates Court certificate of record 9.1.2020 Defendant: ROH
10. NAD) Log of projectiles thrown November 2022 to October 2024
11. N17BegL) Correspondence between the applicant and SACAT regarding whether or not the tenants at number 17 had vacated
12. N52Lav) shed roof agreement pictures of roof
13. N54Lav) SAPOL email to and from Unity re number 54 no mention of number 54 having issues with the applicant (ZZD lied to SACAT) 2019
14. N54Lav) SAPOL report regarding fence issues
15. N52Lav) Photos of Roof Damage

ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE LODGED BY THE APPLICANT ON 17 SEPTEMBER 2024

1. N17BegJ) Council timeline regarding smoke reports at number 17

2. N17BegJ) stat dec of elected member regarding fire and smoke from number 17

5. N17BegK) stat dec of the contractor who worked at the applicant's house

6. N17BegK) Email from MP regarding claims applicant attended his private party

7. N17begK) Search results for NEQ on Court Data Australia 14.7.2024

1. **DON'T SHARE** N17BegK)) Text messages - applicant & respondent - were good neighbours (they lied to SACAT)

9. N17BegK) After hours call out report regarding fire

10. N52Lav) Email from council on what constitutes a local nuisance

11. N52Lav) AD 12) official letter to Unity Housing re number 52 from council

12. N52Lav) email from SAPOL - the file was not listed for trial

14. N52Lav) ROH court certificate for assault 9.1.2020

15. N54Lav) text regarding chemical trespass from biosecurity SA

16. N54Lav) biosecurity SA chemical trespass report

17. N54Lav) email & text to Unity regarding fence about to burst

18. N54Lav) email to Unity regarding continued issues

19. N54Lav) Email from councillor to Unity housing regarding continued issues

20. N54Lav) councillor's letter to Unity Housing regarding fence replacement

21. N54Lav) ZZD convictions on Court Data Australia

22. N54Lav) ZZD's Statutory Declaration with comments from applicant

23. NAD) Applicant's timeline of events for number 52

25. NAD1) Stat Dec - Rohit (redacted) witness for smoke

26. NAD) evidence that smoke causes pneumonia (official studies)

27. NAD2) Stat Dec - applicant's father's witness statement13.9. 2024 (redacted)

28. N54Lav) attempts to mediate with Unity Housing (redacted)

29. NAD3) Stat Dec - neighbour (redacted) 2.9.2024

30. FOI documents on fire and smoke reports at number 52

31. NAD4) Neighbour's letter (redacted) of support

32. updated I) Damages compensation from number 52 attacks including quotes

35. Stat Dec - Neighbour witness statement 16.9.2024

37. N17BegK) Text messages between the applicant and the respondent [Redacted]

[1] See: Section 70(4) SACAT Act and also Re AKS [2016] SACAT 19.

[2] See paragraph 122 of the original Order.

[3] See paragraph 131 of the original Order - by the time of the internal review, EVM had provided the video footage on USB.

1. [4] Eg Items 3, 25, 27, of the documents lodged on 17 September 2024 and Item 5 of the documents lodged on 15 November 2024.
2. [5] Eg Items 1, 2, 8, 30 and 37 of the documents lodged on 17 September 2024 and Items 6, 13 of the documents lodged on 15 November 2024, Items 9, 10, 18, 19, 26 and 30 of the documents lodged on 17 September 2024.
3. [6] Eg Items 4, 8 and 13 of documents lodged on 15 November 2024.
4. [7] Eg Items 29, 31 and 35 of the documents lodged on 17 September 2024.
5. [8] Eg Items 7, and 21 of the documents lodged on 17 September 2024.
6. [9] Eg Items 15, 16, 17 and 24 of the documents lodged on 17 September 2024 and Item 14 of the documents lodged on 15 November 2024.
7. [10] Eg Items 6, 12 and 15 of the evidence lodged on 15 November 2024 and Item 24 of the evidence lodged on 17 September 2024.
8. [11] Item 7 of the documents lodged on 15 November 2024.
9. [12] Item 28 of the documents lodged on 17 September 2024.
10. [13] Eg Item 23 of the documents lodged on 17 September 2024 and Items 8 and 10 of the documents lodged on 15 November 2024.
11. [14] Eg Item 32 of the documents lodged on 17 September 2024.
12. [15] Eg Item 11 of the documents lodged on 15 November 2024.
13. [16] Eg Items 8 and 37 of the documents lodged on 17 September 2024.
14. [17] The applicant's Outline of Argument.
15. [18] An email about the applicant's attendance at a function but I do not consider this issue is relevant to the dispute.
16. [19] This is a letter from the Council to Unity dated 1 July 2024 concerning the issues in dispute.
17. [20] This is an inspection report made by Unity.
18. [21] This is a certificate concerning ROH's conviction and is not disputed by him.
19. [22] The applicant's Outline of Argument.
20. [23] An email about the applicant's attendance at a function but I do not consider this issue is relevant to the dispute.
21. [24] This is a letter from the Council to Unity dated 1 July 2024 concerning the issues in dispute.
22. [25] As for footnote 5.

[26] See page 6 of his submission of 25 May 2024.

1. [27] At page 3 of his 46 page submission.
2. [28] At the review hearing the Tribunal was informed that ZZD had recently died - they lived at number 54 adjacent to the respondent.

[29] At page 26 of his 46 page submission.

[30] At page 14 of his 46 page submission.

[31] And this extends to any submission such as that made by the applicant (at page 3 of his 46 page submission) that Unity's position was unreasonable because they have approximately 3,000 rental properties, and so they could easily shift the respondent into another property.

[32] See: CLG v LKM & Anor [2024] SACAT 38.

[34] For example, in his written submission of July 2024, the applicant refers to 16 separate incidents occurring between 14 June 2024 and 4 July 2024 and his submissions are supported by the logs he has provided.

[35] For example at page 5 of his response to the statutory declaration of NEQ - his comments written on that statutory declaration.

[36] At page 48 of the transcript of the hearing on 22 July 2024.

[37] At page 5 of his submission dated 25 May 2024.

[38] For example, at page 35 of the transcript from 22 July 2024.

[39] See page 12 of his submission dated 25 May 2024.

[40] At approximately 12.48 of the audio recording of the review hearing.

[41] At page 81 of the transcript from Day 1 of the original hearing.

[42] At page 48 of the transcript from Day 1 of the original hearing.

[43] At page 56 of the transcript from Day 1 of the original hearing.

[44] At page 38 of the transcript from Day 1 of the original hearing.

[45] At page 39 of the transcript from Day 1 of the original hearing.

[46] At page 40 of the transcript from Day 1 of the original hearing.

[47] See for example, 3rd master log entry for 9 July 2024 at page 1.

1. [48] At pages 70 - 72 of the transcript from 1 August 2024.
2. [49] At page 7 of the transcript from 1 August 2024.
3. [50] At page 40 of the transcript from 1 August 2024.
4. [51] At page 40 of the transcript from 1 August 2024.
5. [52] For example, 3rd master log from 14/6/24 - 17/7/24 at page 1 - entry for 10 July 2024 and at page 3 entry for 4 July 2024.
6. [53] At page 40 of the transcript from 22 July 2024.
7. [54] At page 82 of the transcript from 1 August 2024.
8. [55] The respondent and ROH had attempted to call NEQ and HYK (a family member of NEQ, and a person who resided with her at number 17) to give evidence in the original proceedings, but they attended at the hearing on 22 July 2024 and due to the length of time taken for the other evidence on that day, there was not time for them to give evidence then. They were unable to give evidence on the second hearing day, and that is why the respondent and ROH relied on their written evidence.
9. [56] At pages 6-8.
10. [57] At paragraphs 11-13.
11. [58] At paragraph 14.
12. [59] At page 123 of the transcript from hearing on 1 August 2024.
13. [60] At page 122 of the transcript from hearing on 1 August 2024.
14. [61] At pages 82-102 of the transcript from hearing on 1 August 2024.
15. [62] At page 23 of the transcript from 1 August 2024.
16. [63] At paragraph 146.
17. [64] At paragraph 147.
18. [65] At paragraph 155.
19. [66] At paragraph 158.
20. [67] At paragraphs 159-160.
21. [68] At paragraph 151.
22. [69] At paragraph 171.
23. [70] At page 4 of his 46 page submission.
24. [71] At page 7 of his 46 page submission.
25. [72] At page 13 of his 46 page submission.
26. [73] At page 8 of his 46 page submission.
27. [74] At page 9 of his 46 page submission.
28. [75] At page 9 of his 46 page submission.
29. [76] For example, that the fence was not Colourbond - page 5 of his 46 page submission.
30. [77] At pages 14, 16, 17, 18 and 20 of his 46 page submission.
31. [78] At page 5 of his 46 page submission.
32. [79] And in her statutory declaration, NEQ refers to the applicant claiming that there had been over a thousand projectiles sent into his property from her property.
33. [80] See also paragraph 24 of the solicitor's letter.
34. [81] See for example, page 16 of his 46 page submission in the internal review.
35. [82] This is referred to in the statutory declaration of NEQ - page 2.
36. [83] At page 3 of the log for 14/6/24 - 17/7/24.
37. [84] See paragraph 23 of the solicitor's letter.
38. [85] See page 2 of NEQ's statutory declaration in which she states that fire engines arrived on two occasions when those tenants were having friends over for a bar b que.
39. [86] At page 83 of the transcript of the hearing on 1 August 2024.
40. [87] At page 12 of his submissions of 25 May 2024.
41. [88] At page 13 of his 46 page submission.
42. [89] At page 19 of the transcript of the hearing on 1 August 2024.
43. [90] At page 6 of the transcript of the hearing on 22 July 2024.
44. [91] See paragraph 22 of the solicitor's letter.
45. [92] See for example, page 16 of his 46 page submission in the internal review.
46. [93] At page 83 of the transcript of the hearing 1 August 2024.
47. [94] See paragraph 25 of the solicitor's letter.
48. [95] See paragraph 9.1 of the solicitor's letter.
49. [96] See paragraph 12.1 of the solicitor's letter.
50. [97] See paragraph 20 of the solicitor's letter.
51. [98] See paragraph 2 of the solicitor's letter.
52. [99] See paragraph 12 of the solicitor's letter and also NEQ's statutory declaration.
53. [100] Which occurred on 9 January 2020.