Georgiou v NSW Land and House Corporation

Having reviewed the papers, I listed the matter before me at 8.30am on 30 June on the basis that the plaintiff was to be evicted at 9:00am. I directed that the plaintiff inform the defendant, being the New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation (“the Corporation”), that I listed this matter as a matter of urgency at 8.30am today.

When the matter was called, there was no appearance by the defendant. The plaintiff informed me that he had made two phone calls to the defendant to try and notify it, without response. Of course, it is understandable that the defendant has been unable to appear at such short notice. Having said that, in circumstances in which the plaintiff is about to be evicted from his premises at Glebe where he has resided for the past eight years, it is important that his application be dealt with as a matter of urgency.

It must be said that, representing himself, there is some difficulty or lack of clarity in the documentation on which he relies. However, the basis of the plaintiff’s application to this Court is that he maintains that there has been an error in the defendant's records in the sense that he maintains that he has, in fact, been paying rent.

He is about to be evicted because of an order from the Civil and Administrative Tribunal (“NCAT”). He has not been able to provide me with all the relevant documents, but he relies on his own affidavit filed on 29 June 2026, attached to which are a number of what he says are the defendant's records.

Having regard to the information provided, it seems that on 8 December 2025, the defendant wrote to the plaintiff, informing him that he was in breach of his residential tenancy agreement because he had not paid rent on time and was not paying water charges. He was asked to bring the amount owing up to date. I am not sure what occurred between 8 December 2025 and 12 January 2026, but on 12 January 2026, NCAT issued a certificate under s 78 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), ordering him to pay the defendant the sum of $1,113.51 by instalments of not less than $60 per fortnight. The first payment was due on 23 January 2026.

According to the plaintiff, he sought to challenge the amount outstanding, but his application was dismissed. I am not sure when that summons was made or why the orders were made, but he has provided to me a number of documents which, on the face of the documents, raise a real issue as to whether:

He had not been paying the rent and water charges in late 2025, and;

He did not then comply with the order made on 12 January 2026.

For example, he has provided an extract of his bank account, styled a concession account, which seems to suggest that $60 was being deducted from his account every fortnight, at least for the period March to May 2026.

More significantly, he has provided me with what he says are copies of the defendant’s own records which he says he obtained from the defendant’s offices only two weeks ago. They are referred to as annexure A to his affidavit. The first document tends to suggest that, as of 3 January 2026, the sum of $1,093.98 was owing, which may be consistent with the order made by NCAT on 12 January 2026. The second document shows payments of $7.50 per week for water charges, which may be inconsistent with the proposition that he had not been paying the water charges.

More fundamentally, there is another document for the period 22 September 2025 to 17 January 2026 which the plaintiff says he obtained directly from the defendant, which shows that as at 17 January 2026, he was actually in credit in the amount of $136.75. That document shows that the standard debits of $136.75 were being deducted from his bank account and paid to the defendant. That is, the document tends to show that he had been paying his rent as and when it was due. The plaintiff says that these documents show that there has been some mix up and that his own statements to the effect that he had been paying rent should have been accepted. He says that these documents provide proof that he had been paying the rent as he suggests.

The plaintiff informs me that the payments are made directly from his Centrelink account. There may be another explanation for what is contained in the documents (which may be explained by the Corporation), but at least on the face of the documents, it appears that, as the plaintiff asserts, he was paying his rent and the amount said to be outstanding was not outstanding. The plaintiff is a long-term resident of his current unit. He lives there with another person, who is also present in court today.

I have an inherent power, as well as a power under s 67 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) (“CPA”), to make orders where justice demands it. This is a case where the plaintiff is about to be evicted from his long-term home. He has no other home to go to, in circumstances in which, at least on the evidence presented to me, it is possible that the plaintiff is being evicted based on a mistake. He says that he was not able to present this evidence to NCAT, but he has now obtained the evidence of that mistake.

It seems to me that in all the circumstances, I should make an order under s 135 of the CPA, which expressly provides that the Court may make an order prohibiting the Sheriff from taking any further action on a writ. In the circumstances, I stay the orders which have apparently been made permitting the Sheriff to evict the plaintiff at 9:00am this morning, for a period of seven days. The Court is doing its best to notify the Sheriff of that. I will also make the following orders:

The order for eviction is stayed until 12pm on Tuesday 7 July 2026;

List the matter before the Duty Judge at 10am on Tuesday 7 July 2026 for further consideration;

Order that the plaintiff inform the defendant of the orders made today;

Order that the plaintiff inform the defendant that the matter will be heard before McGuire J on Tuesday 7 July 2026 and the parties should contact his Honour’s chambers next Monday to let him know what is happening with the matter.