Ferguson v Mission Australia

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. This is an internal appeal made under s 80(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) (the NCAT Act), from a decision of the Consumer and Commercial Division of the Tribunal.
2. The dispute concerns a residential tenancy agreement between Mission Australia (which is the respondent to the appeal), and Ms Ferguson (who is the appellant in the appeal). For convenience, in these reasons we will refer to the appellant as "the tenant", and to the respondent as "the landlord".
3. On 20 June 2024 the Tribunal made orders under s 87 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) (the RT Act) terminating the parties' residential tenancy agreement on the ground that the tenant had breached the agreement.
4. The tenant now appeals against that decision and seeks orders setting aside the Tribunal's decision and remitting the matter to the Tribunal, differently constituted, for rehearing.
5. For the reasons that follow we have decided to refuse leave to appeal and to dismiss the appeal.

Timing

1. The Tribunal's decision was issued to the parties on 20 June 2024. The notice of appeal was filed in the Tribunal's registry on 5 July 2024 which is one day outside the 14-day time period prescribed under regulation 25 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 (NSW). The tenant's representative, Mr Webb, informed the Appeal Panel that a soft copy of the notice of appeal had been emailed to the Tribunal registry on 4 July 2024, which was the last day of the 14-day time period. We were not provided with a copy of that email and were unable to locate it on the Appeal Panel's file. Therefore, it appears the tenant requires an extension of time to lodge the appeal. However, the landlord's representative, Ms Kinchela, confirmed to us at the hearing that, to the extent that an extension of time is necessary, the landlord consents to the Tribunal extending time for filing the appeal by one day, to 5 July 2024. We have made an order accordingly pursuant to our powers under s 41 of the NCAT Act.

Background and Tribunal proceedings

1. The relevant background to the appeal is as follows.
2. On 20 March 2000 the parties entered a residential tenancy agreement (the tenancy agreement) in respect of premises in Coffs Harbour, New South Wales (the premises).
3. The tenant is a 58 year-old Aboriginal woman. The landlord is a social housing provider.
4. On 27 September 2023 the landlord served a notice of termination on the tenant (the termination notice) on the ground of breach of the tenancy agreement. The termination notice relevantly stated: You have breached your Residential Tenancy Agreement which states: 7.1 Not to use the residential premises, or cause or permit the premises to be used, for any illegal purpose; and 7.2 Not to cause or permit a nuisance; 7.3 Not to interfere, or cause or permit interference with, the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of neighbours; 12.1 Keep the premises reasonably clean; and 12.3 Not to intentionally or negligently cause or permit any damage to the premises; and 29.1 The tenant agrees to give the landlord written notice within 28 days of any change of household members or the number of persons residing n the premises for longer than 28 days; … 36 The tenant shall not light a fire to burn household or garden refuse or any other matter or for any like purpose at any time.
5. The date for termination specified in the termination notice was 13 October 2023.
6. On 18 October 2023 the landlord commenced proceedings in the Tribunal seeking an order under s 187(1)(b) of the RT Act requiring action in performance of the tenancy agreement, and an order under s 87 of the RT Act for termination of the tenancy agreement on the ground that the tenant had breached the agreement.
7. On 15 November 2023, in the absence of the tenant, the Tribunal made the following orders: 1. The tenant must comply with the terms of residential tenancy agreement by not to cause or permit a nuisance or interfere or cause any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of any neighbour of the tenant. 2. The tenant must comply with the terms of the residential tenancy agreement by keeping the residential premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness both inside and out. 3. The tenant must comply with the terms of the residential tenancy agreement by not permitting additional occupants to reside on the premises without the landlord's consent. 4. If the orders are not complied with by the tenant then at any time before 15 May 2024, the landlord may request the re-listing of this application to determine whether tenancy should be terminated.

The Tribunal decision

1. The Tribunal provided detailed and thorough reasons for decision (the reasons).
2. In the reasons the Tribunal states that it is satisfied that the termination notice was validly served in accordance with ss 82, 87 and 223 of the RT Act. The reasons go on to say at [23] - [24]: The Tribunal finds that the breach is established. The Tribunal is satisfied on the evidence before it that the allegations concerning the tenant and or her occupants conduct have been proven by the landlord. The Tribunal is satisfied that there have been many incidents involving unauthorised persons occupying the premises causing a nuisance and interfering with the reasonable peace and comfort of the neighbours. The incidents have been continuous and ongoing since August 2023 until the most recent incident in May 2024. The sworn evidence of the landlord and Mr Simpson support a finding that the persons residing at the premises have breached section 51(1)(c) (e) and (2) of the RT Act, specifically: (a) the Tribunal is satisfied that there have been multiple and continuous incidents since 3 August 2024 [sic] until the week before the hearing, when numerous neighbours have contacted the landlord complaining about abusive behaviour from persons residing at the premises. The neighbours have also contacted the NSW Police on several occasions. (b) The Tribunal is satisfied based on the inspection of the landlord on 24 August 2023 and 28 September 2023 and 20 October 2023 as to the condition of the property (c) The Tribunal is satisfied that there was sufficient evidence before it on 15 November 2023 to grant to the landlord a specific performance order. The Tribunal finds despite the specific performance order being issued to the 15 November 2023, complaints from the neighbours continued. The tenant failed to engage with the landlord or support services to try to rectify the breaches. The tenant has only recently made contact with support services.
3. The reasons proceed to make 18 findings of fact about the conduct of the tenant and her occupants during the period after the specific performance order was made by the Tribunal on 15 November 2023. The reasons then refer to s 54 of the RT Act which renders a tenant vicariously responsible to the landlord for any act or omission by any other person who is lawfully on the residential premises. The reasons state at [28]: The Tribunal is satisfied that it is the tenant's daughter who is an occupant in the property, together with other persons who are invited onto the property by the tenant's daughter that have caused the breaches raised in this matter.

Scope and nature of internal appeals

1. An appeal to the Appeal Panel does not provide a losing party in the Tribunal below with the opportunity to run their case again: Ryan v BKB Motor Vehicle Repairs Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCATAP 39 at [10]. To succeed in an appeal, the appellant must demonstrate either an error on a question of law, which, except in an appeal from an interlocutory decision, may be argued as of right; or that permission (that is, "leave") to appeal should be granted to bring the appeal: NCAT Act, s 80(2).
2. The circumstances in which the Appeal Panel may grant leave to appeal from decisions made in the Consumer and Commercial Division are constrained by cl 12(1) of Sch 4 of the NCAT Act. In such cases, the Appeal Panel must be satisfied that the appellant may have suffered a substantial miscarriage of justice on the basis that: (a) the decision of the Tribunal under appeal was not fair and equitable; or (b) the decision of the Tribunal under appeal was against the weight of evidence; or (c) significant new evidence has arisen (being evidence that was not reasonably available at the time the proceedings under appeal were being dealt with).
3. In Collins v Urban [2014] NSWCATAP 17 (Collins v Urban), the Appeal Panel stated at [76] that a substantial miscarriage of justice for the purposes of cl 12(1) of Schedule 4 may have been suffered where: … there was a "significant possibility" or a "chance which was fairly open" that a different and more favourable result would have been achieved for the appellant had the relevant circumstance in para (a) or (b) not occurred or if the fresh evidence under para (c) had been before the Tribunal at first instance.
4. Even if an appellant from a decision of the Consumer and Commercial Division has satisfied the requirements of cl 12(1) of Sch 4, the Appeal Panel must still consider whether it should exercise its discretion to grant leave to appeal under s 80(2)(b).

Grounds of Appeal

1. The tenant raises three grounds of appeal.
2. The first ground of appeal is that the Tribunal failed to provide procedural fairness. This ground involves a question of law for which leave to appeal is not required.
3. The tenant also seeks leave to appeal on the basis that she may have suffered a substantial miscarriage of justice because: 1. the decision of the Tribunal was against the weight of evidence; and 2. significant new evidence has arisen (being evidence that was not reasonably available at the time the proceedings under appeal were being dealt with).

Ground 1 - Procedural fairness

1. This ground of appeal relates to the landlord's witness, Mr Simpson.
2. The tenant's submissions in relation to this ground of appeal can be summarised as follows: 1. The landlord did not notify the tenant prior to the hearing that Mr Simpson would be attending the hearing and giving oral evidence. The lack of notice deprived the tenant and her representative of the opportunity to adequately prepare for Mr Simpson's evidence or to cross-examine him effectively. The tenant submits, referencing Williams v NSW Land and Housing Corporation [2012] NSWSC 102 (Williams) at [67] that "the result of the process adopted was that untested evidence given by the defendant's witnesses as to crucial matters, came to form the foundation of the Tribunal's decision". 2. Limited information was provided about Mr Simpson's residence and background information at the hearing, including where he lived or how he knew about the tenant's alleged absences from the premises or the names of her family members. This lack of information made his evidence "ambiguous and difficult to address". 3. Mr Simpson's oral evidence went beyond the scope of what was included in his anonymous record of interview. He gave oral evidence about new matters which the tenant heard for the first time during the hearing and which the Tribunal accepted. This left the tenant in an unfair position "unable to challenge or refute the new, unsubstantiated evidence presented." 4. The evidence given by Mr Simpson about an affray in October 2023 predated the specific performance order and therefore should not have been taken into account by the Tribunal when deciding to terminate the tenancy.

Relevant principles

1. The Tribunal has a duty to conduct its hearings in a procedurally fair manner and to take such measures that are reasonably practical to ensure that the parties have a reasonable opportunity to be heard or otherwise have their submissions considered in the proceedings (s 38(2) and s38(5)(c) of the NCAT Act).
2. Procedural fairness requires that both parties have a reasonable opportunity to present their case: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj [2002] HCA 11; (2002) 209 CLR 597 at [40]; Sullivan v Department of Transport [1978] FCA 48; (1978) 20 ALR 323 at 343.
3. What is 'a reasonable opportunity to be heard' will vary from case to case. As Gleeson CJ said in Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Lam [2003] HCA 6; (2003) 214 CLR 1 at [37]: Fairness is not an abstract concept. It is essentially practical. Whether one talks in terms of procedural fairness or natural justice, the concern of the law is to avoid practical injustice.
4. Basten JA addressed the same issue in Italiano v Carbone & Ors [2005] NSWCA 177 at [88]: An opportunity foregone, but reasonably available, does not demonstrate breach of procedural fairness. To demonstrate procedural fairness it is usually necessary to show that a claimant "lost an opportunity to put any information or argument to the decision-maker, or otherwise suffered any detriment," as explained by Gleeson CJ in Re Minister for Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs; Ex parte Lam (2003) 214 CLR 1 at [36]. As the Chief Justice continued at [37]: "A common form of detriment suffered where a decision-maker has failed to take a procedural step is loss of an opportunity to make representations." at [37].
5. A failure to provide procedural fairness ordinarily means that there has been an erroneous decision which should, under s 81 of the NCAT Act, be set aside or quashed, with the appeal allowed, save in rare circumstances, such as where the breach would have made no difference to the outcome of the case: Stead v State Government Insurance Commission [1986] HCA 54; (1986) 161 CLR 141 at [28]; Warkworth Mining Limited v Bulga Milbrodale Progress Association Inc [2014] NSWCA 105 at [40]-[44].

Consideration

1. The transcript of the hearing records that part-way through the hearing (at [19:31]), Ms Kinchela informed the Tribunal member that a neighbour of the tenant, Mr Glen Simpson, was available to give oral evidence. Mr Simpson subsequently gave oral evidence in chief, under affirmation (from [33:55]). This involved the Tribunal member asking, and Mr Simpson answering, a series of questions. The transcript reveals that on two occasions after Mr Simpson had completed his evidence in chief (at [42:57] and [44:14]) the Tribunal member gave Mr Webb an opportunity to ask Mr Simpson questions. However, in both instances Mr Webb declined to do so.
2. At [46:49], after Mr Simpson had been dismissed by the Tribunal member and Ms Kinchela's case in chief had closed, the following exchange occurred between the Tribunal member and Mr Webb: Tribunal member: Mr Webb what do want to say in response? Mr Webb: Ah in response I know the witness has made some comments. But a lot of the serious stuff in it goes to Section 154E. It happened before the SPO was made. Umm you know last year, and it has been dealt with in that SPO … we don't believe that the breach or any breaches justify termination. In fact, it makes it hard for us to defend it anyway the anonymous complaints as well. Like I said I haven't had time. I've only just been made aware today of Mr Simpson providing evidence. Which made it difficult to even talk to Ms Ferguson about some of the allegations that were made. See they were all similar even though the four anonymous complaints. But it was pretty difficult to defend on the day being caught by surprise.
3. The Tribunal member then gave Mr Webb an opportunity to explain why he was caught by surprise, and pointed out that he knew in advance of the hearing about the content of Mr Simpson's record of interview. However, Mr Webb did not provide a direct response to the Tribunal member's question or to the point she made about the record of interview. The hearing continued and Mr Webb made no further remark about Mr Simpson's evidence.
4. We are not satisfied that the fact that the landlord did not notify the tenant prior to the hearing that Mr Simpson would be giving oral evidence at the hearing resulted in a denial of procedural fairness or in any practical injustice. Although the tenant did not know Mr Simpson's identity until the hearing, she and her representative were aware of the substance of Mr Simpson's evidence in advance of the hearing because the landlord had previously furnished her with copies of the four anonymous records of interview, including that of Mr Simpson. Whilst we agree that Mr Simpson's oral evidence went beyond the information contained in his record of interview, it did not do so in any material way. The evidence provided by Mr Simpson at the hearing elaborated on and clarified the information in his record of interview, but did not include substantive new information.

Conclusion in relation to procedural fairness ground

1. For all of these reasons we are not satisfied that there has been a failure to afford procedural fairness. As the authorities discussed above establish, an opportunity foregone, but reasonably available, does not demonstrate breach of procedural fairness. The tenant's representative was afforded the opportunity to cross-examine Mr Simpson, but elected not to do so.
2. This ground of appeal therefore fails.

Leave to appeal - weight of evidence

1. The tenant seeks leave to appeal on the basis that she may have suffered a substantial miscarriage of justice because the decision was against the weight of evidence. Her submissions in relation to this issue can be summarised as follows: 1. The reasons make numerous references to police attendances at the property. However, the Tribunal did not consider the lack of police evidence supporting these assertions and therefore the Tribunal did not have sufficient evidence to support its finding at [25(p)] that "NSW Police attended the property on 5 December 2023, 5 January 2024, 8 January 2024 and April 2024". 2. The landlord only provided a single photograph of the exterior of the premises to support its assertions regarding the condition of the property. However, there was no photographic evidence to substantiate the landlord's clams regarding unregistered vehicles, vermin or other alleged property care issues and this lack of visual evidence undermines the credibility of the landlord's allegations. 3. Mr Simpson's record of interview was unsubstantiated by photographs, reports or any other documentary evidence and his evidence regarding his medical conditions and personal wellbeing was not corroborated by medical evidence. 4. The written statements provided by neighbours were anonymous.
2. The tenant says the Tribunal should also have given more weight to her evidence regarding potential homelessness. The tenant's submissions state "[t]he tenant has been in social housing for over two decades, and she qualifies for and receives social security payments, so it follows that if she were to lose her home, particularly during the cost of living crisis, homelessness would be a probable consequence of a termination order". The tenant's submissions include excerpts from the "Bugmy Bar Book" and state that the Tribunal should have had regard to the chapter on homelessness contained in that publication.
3. The tenant also submits that the Tribunal did not give sufficient weight to the tenant's evidence about her personal circumstances, and that, taking account of those circumstances, the Tribunal should have decided that the circumstances of the case did not justify termination of the tenancy agreement for the purposes of s 87(6) of the RT Act. The tenant says the Tribunal should have given more weight to the evidence that the tenant had lived in the premises for over 24 years, that she had only started receiving allegations about the tenancy in the last 12 months, and that she is taking active steps to seek support from Many Rivers Family Violence Prevention Legal Service.

Consideration

1. A decision under appeal can be said to be against the weight of evidence where the evidence in its totality preponderates so strongly against the conclusion found by the Tribunal at first instance that it can be said that the conclusion was not one that a reasonable Tribunal Member could reach: Collins v Urban at [77].
2. We have carefully considered the various factual findings of the Tribunal to which the tenant objects and in our view, it cannot be said that the findings in question were "manifestly unreasonable" or so unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker would make it. We deal with each of the issues raised by the tenant, and explain our reasoning, below.

Police attendances

1. Although there was no direct evidence before the Tribunal from NSW Police, there was ample evidence before the Tribunal that police had been called to the premises on multiple occasions during the relevant period. This included the unchallenged oral testimony of Mr Simpson, the landlord's documentary records including its chronology of events and "summary of incidents", the records of interview, and Ms Kinchela's oral testimony.
2. Moreover, the tenant's evidence did not refute the landlord's evidence about police attendances.
3. We are therefore not persuaded that the findings of the Tribunal regarding the multiple police attendances at the premises were not reasonably open to it on the available evidence.

Condition of the premises

1. Although only one photograph of the premises was relied upon by the tenant, there was other evidence about the condition of the premises, including Ms Kinchella's oral testimony regarding her attendances at the premises, the records of interview, inspection reports prepared by the landlord and the other records of the landlord.
2. There was no evidence from the tenant refuting this evidence.
3. We are satisfied that the findings of the Tribunal with regard to the condition of the premises were reasonably open to it on the available evidence.

Mr Simpson's evidence

1. Although Mr Simpson's oral testimony and record of interview were not accompanied by photographs, reports or any other documentary evidence, Mr Simpson's oral testimony was unchallenged and it was open to the Tribunal to make findings on the basis of that evidence.
2. We would add that whilst we agree with the tenant that Mr Simpson's oral evidence about his medical condition was vague and not supported by evidence from qualified medical professionals, the Tribunal made no factual findings about that matter, beyond recording that it was satisfied that the behaviour of the persons occupying the premises had severely impacted Mr Simpson, including by impacting his mental health and causing him to have concerns about the safety of his family. These findings were reasonably open to the Tribunal on the basis of the evidence before the Tribunal, including Mr Simpson's unchallenged oral evidence about the effects the occupants' behaviour was having on himself and his family. We are not satisfied that the Tribunal's findings about those matters were not reasonably open to it.

Anonymous statements

1. The landlord relied on records of interview with four unidentified neighbours. One of those neighbours was identified at the hearing as Mr Simpson and as discussed above, Mr Webb elected not to cross-examine Mr Simpson. The subjects of the other records of interview remained unidentified at the hearing.
2. It is without doubt that evidence from unidentified persons will generally have a limited evidentiary value. This is primarily because the accuracy and reliability of the evidence in question cannot be tested. However, here, one of those persons (Mr Simpson) identified himself and gave oral evidence at the hearing. The reasons reflect that Mr Simpson's evidence formed a significant basis for the Tribunal's findings of fact about the tenant's breaches and the impact of those breaches on neighbours. Moreover, the reasons reflect that the Tribunal did not place significant (if any) reliance on the other records of interview when making findings of fact about the alleged breaches. In this regard, besides Mr Simpson's evidence, there was ample other evidence before the Tribunal which formed the basis of its factual findings, including Ms Kinchella's oral evidence as well as the landlord's written records.

Evidence regarding risk of homelessness

1. At [38] of the reasons the Tribunal addresses the tenant's submission that there is a risk of the tenant becoming homeless if the tenancy is terminated. The reasons: 1. refer to the fact that little evidence had been provided to support this assertion; 2. say that other than evidence that the tenant is receiving Centrelink payments, there is no documentary evidence in respect of her financial circumstances; 3. point out that there was no evidence before the Tribunal as to the affordability of the private rental market in Coffs Harbour, or alternative housing options in the area; 4. conclude: "[w]ithout any detailed evidence of both the tenant's financial affairs and all other possible housing options for proper consideration the Tribunal simply could not be satisfied what alternative accommodation the tenant could or could not potentially afford or whether she is or is not susceptible to homeless."
2. Reading the reasons as a whole, it is apparent that the Tribunal also took account of the fact that the tenant is an Aboriginal woman, that the premises are social housing accommodation, and that the tenant has a history of disadvantage.
3. The tenant has not identified any evidence which was before the Tribunal which went specifically to the issue of potential homelessness. The matters to which the tenant says the Tribunal should have given more weight (that is, the fact that she receives social security payments and has resided at the premises for 20 years) did not directly inform the Tribunal of the tenant's personal or financial situation or her housing prospects. We are satisfied that the Tribunal gave appropriate weight to those matters.
4. There was no evidence before the Tribunal about the "cost of living crisis" or how it might impact the tenant's ability to secure future housing.
5. With regard to the chapter on homelessness in the "Bugmy Bar Book", this publication was not before the Tribunal at the hearing and the Tribunal was not bound to consider it. The tenant has sought leave to rely on that document in the appeal and for reasons explained later in these reasons we have refused that request.
6. In circumstances where there was no specific evidence before the Tribunal about the tenant's financial situation or about the alternative housing options in the area, we cannot be satisfied that the Tribunal's conclusion regarding the susceptibility of the tenant to homeless was not reasonably open to it on the available evidence.

The tenant's other evidence

1. We do not agree that the Tribunal failed to give sufficient weight to evidence about the tenant's circumstances, including her evidence that she had lived in the premises for over 24 years, that she had only started receiving allegations about the tenancy in the last 12 months, and that she is taking active steps to seek support.
2. The reasons reflect that the Tribunal gave careful consideration to each of these matters (including at [29], [36] and [37] of the reasons) and weighed them against the factors in favour of termination.
3. We would add that although the tenant did not specifically raise as a ground of appeal that the Tribunal had erred in the exercise of its discretion under ss 87 and 154E of the RT Act (which would involve an error on a question of law), we would add that, applying the principles in House v The King [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499, we see no error in the exercise of the Tribunal's discretion. We are not satisfied that the decision of the Tribunal was unreasonable in any relevant sense. The reasons demonstrate a rational approach to the findings of fact it made, a proper identification of the matters to which it was required to have regard in exercising its discretion under ss 87 and 154E, and the exercise of its discretion by applying the facts as found to the relevant criteria. It cannot be said that the decision lacked transparent and comprehensible justification.

Conclusion in relation to the weight of evidence ground

1. For all of these reasons we are not persuaded that the Tribunal's decision was not reasonably open to it on the basis of the available evidence.

Leave to appeal - significant new evidence

1. The tenant also seeks leave to appeal on the basis that she may have suffered a substantial miscarriage of justice because significant new evidence has arisen (being evidence that was not reasonably available at the time the proceedings under appeal were being dealt with).
2. The evidence to which the tenant refers is evidence that, after the first instance hearing, the tenant's adult daughter and her partner vacated the premises. That evidence comprises: 1. A statutory declaration declared by the tenant on 6 August 2024; and 2. A statutory declaration declared by the tenant's daughter Alyssa Ferguson on 2 August 2024.
3. The tenant says the evidence regarding the tenant's daughter is significant because the Tribunal's decision was predicated on the fact that the breaches had been caused by the tenant's daughter and by persons invited to the premises by the tenant's daughter.
4. The tenant submits that the new evidence "fundamentally alters the context of the original decision and indicates that the conditions which are said to have prompted the original decision have been resolved, altering the basis for eviction."

Consideration

1. The relevant principles were recently enunciated by the Appeal Panel in The Owners-Strata Plan No 53865 v JPG Investments Pty Ltd [2024] NSWCATAP 12 as follows: 167. An appellant does not have an unfettered right to adduce fresh evidence about events that have occurred subsequent to the hearing. As the Appeal Panel stated in Chapman v McLaughlin [2016] NSWCATAP 212 at [37]: ... The point of limiting fresh evidence to that which was not reasonably available at the first hearing is to ensure finality of proceedings. This means that it is in the interests of justice for parties to put forward all of their evidence as best they can at the hearing, as otherwise, if they were free to add fresh evidence after a case was decided, the proceedings would run the risk of not being finalised until after many hearings. This principle is of particular importance in the Tribunal because of the provisions of s 36 of the Act. That section requires the Tribunal to proceed to decide cases justly, quickly and cheaply.' 168. The ability to adduce fresh evidence arises in the context of the Tribunal's powers to grant leave to appeal under cl. 12 of sch 4 of the NCAT Act. In that statutory context, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the appellant suffered a "substantial miscarriage of justice" in the sense there was a "significant possibility" or "a chance that was fairly open" that a different and more favourable result would have occurred if the fresh evidence of Mr Clee had been before the Tribunal at first instance (Collins v Urban at [76]-[79]). 169. Further, the "concept of substantial miscarriage of justice refers to the failure in the way a matter was conducted or decided that which deprived the appellant of a chance that was fairly open of achieving a better outcome than occurred" (Collins v Urban at [71]). The concept focuses upon the manner in which the hearing was conducted or decided, not fresh events that have occurred since the date of the Tribunal hearing. 170. The purported new evidence must not only be "significant," but it must also be evidence that was unavailable at the date of the hearing in the sense that "no person could reasonably have obtained the evidence" (Al-Daouk v Mr Pine Pty Ltd t/as Furnco Bankstown [2015] NSWCATAP 111 at [23]).
2. Applying those principles, we are not satisfied that we should grant the tenant leave to appeal on the basis of the new evidence regarding the tenant's daughter.

Leave to rely on Bugmy Bar Book

1. As mentioned earlier in these reasons, the tenant has sought leave to rely in the appeal on a chapter contained in the "Bugmy Bar Book" entitled "Homelessness" (the Bugmy homelessness chapter).
2. The Bugmy homelessness chapter contains information about homelessness, including the causes and impacts of homelessness. It also provides information about homelessness in indigenous communities, including that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are ten times more likely to experience homelessness than non-indigenous people.
3. The tenant has not explained the legal basis for her request to rely on this document in the appeal.
4. In appeals from decisions of the Consumer and Commercial Division of the Tribunal, the ability to adduce fresh evidence generally arises in the context of the Tribunal's powers to grant leave to appeal under cl. 12 of sch 4 of the NCAT Act. In that statutory context, applying the principles articulated above, we are not satisfied that the Bugmy homelessness chapter is significant new evidence that was not reasonably available at the time of the hearing. The document, which is dated January 2020, long predates the hearing. No explanation has been provided by the tenant as to why she did not seek to tender that document at the hearing. Moreover, having reviewed the document, we are not satisfied that it would have furthered the tenant's case. Whilst the document contains useful information, it is generic in nature. It would not have assisted the Tribunal to assess the tenant's particular circumstances. As we have explained earlier in these reasons, in the absence of specific information about the tenant's financial situation and alternative housing options available to her in the area, the Tribunal found it could not be satisfied that the tenant was at risk of homelessness. We are not persuaded that, had the Bugmy homelessness chapter been before the Tribunal, the result might have been different.
5. For these reasons we are not satisfied that the Bugmy homelessness chapter is significant new evidence which was not reasonably available at the hearing, nor that there was a "significant possibility" or "a chance that was fairly open" that a different and more favourable result would have occurred if the document had been before the Tribunal at first instance. We are therefore not persuaded that the Bugmy homelessness chapter forms a basis to grant leave to appeal under cl. 12 of sch. 4 of the NCAT Act.

Conclusion

1. The tenant has not established that there was an error of law, or a basis on which leave to appeal should be granted. That makes it unnecessary to consider whether the Appeal Panel should exercise its discretion to grant leave in accordance with the principles stated at [84] in Collins v Urban. Leave to appeal is not granted and the appeal is dismissed.
2. On 17 July 2024 the order for possession made by the Tribunal below was suspended by the Appeal Panel until determination of the appeal or further order of the Appeal Panel, whichever is earlier. We consider it appropriate to make a further order suspending the order for possession for a period of 14 days, in order to give the tenant sufficient time to find alternative accommodation and vacate the premises.

Orders

1. The Appeal Panel orders: 1. Time for filing the appeal is extended to 5 July 2024. 2. Leave to appeal is refused. 3. The appeal is dismissed. 4. In respect of the decision made on 20 June 2024 in 2023/370902, the operation of the order for possession is suspended until 14 days from the date of this order.

---

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. Registrar DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 23 September 2024