Ms Jenny Watson, Equity Realty SA Pty Ltd for the applicants

Ms Stephany Del Canto, Housing Legal Clinic, for the respondents

1. This is an application for internal review of an order made by the Tribunal on 5 April 2018 and amended by slip rule on 19 April 2018. That order required the landlord to arrange for a qualified tradesperson to attend at the property to carry out repairs to the upstairs hot water system and to make an assessment of any problems with the downstairs air-conditioning unit by 5.00pm Thursday 3 May 2018. If this was not done, the tenant would be permitted to call an urgent hearing to determine a further course of action. The landlord was also ordered to pay to the tenants the sum of $1,800.00 as compensation for the inconvenience the tenants suffered for not having an adequate hot water system, oven and dishwasher for the three months since the tenancy commenced.
2. Prior to today's hearing, the landlord had not repaired or replaced the hot water system though the agent and tenants agreed that this was being attended to today. The oven had been replaced (though not before 3 May 2018).The rent credit for $1,800 had not been attended to but the agent today said that would be attended to promptly.
3. Before becoming aware of the internal review, the tenants invoked their rights under the order to bring an urgent application due to the landlord's non-compliance with the order, but that application was adjourned pending the outcome of this internal review.
4. The internal review application was made immediately prior to the date by which the landlord was required to comply with the order. It was also made only a few days prior to the one month period from the original decision within which review applications must be brought. The agent, Ms Watson, wrote in the application for internal review that the landlord seeks to review 'the compensation charge awarded to the tenant as reports for work required by the order states the items are in fact in working order'.
5. The application for review requests an urgent hearing of the internal review on the grounds that "funds are not being paid by the tenant for rent". At this point in time, the agent had not applied the $1,800 rent credit that the tenants were entitled to under the order.
6. The application was set down by the Tribunal Registry for a hearing approximately one month after the application for internal review was lodged.
7. Ms Watson told the Tribunal today that the landlord requested the internal review to be listed in July as the landlord lived overseas and wanted to be given an opportunity to seek legal advice and to attend the hearing. She therefore questioned the purpose of attending today. There is no record of a request for a July hearing being received by the Tribunal. The Tribunal made enquiries of registry staff during the hearing, searched both the original file and the review file and searched the Tribunal's email inboxes but did not locate any such request. Rather, the Tribunal had before it a request for an urgent hearing (contained in the online application for review in Ms Watson's name), which was not accompanied by any request for a stay of the original order.
8. Searches of the Tribunal's files subsequently located an email from the agent dated 14 May 2018 in respect of the tenants' application for an urgent non-compliance hearing. That email asked for the tenants' hearing to be cancelled pending the outcome of the internal review application. In the email the agent makes reference to having requested a hearing date (for the internal review) for early July. However, this does not appear to be the case.
9. A couple of days later, on 16 May 2018, the Tribunal issued a hearing notice for today's internal review hearing and received no further communication from the agent about the date set.
10. The agent further told the Tribunal that the upstairs hot water service has been repaired today, the oven recently replaced and the rent will be credited as required per the order. When asked why the adjournment was required the agent advised that the landlord wishes to take legal advice and instructed the agent today to find out from the Tribunal how it arrived at the compensation order of $1,800. Further, Ms Watson foreshadowed that the basis for the challenge to the order for compensation would be on the basis that the landlord has documents establishing that the upstairs hot water system was in working order.
11. I do not consider these to be proper grounds for review. Firstly, no adequate reason has been given as to why the landlord has not obtained any relevant professional or legal advice to date. Secondly, it is not the role of the Tribunal on review to explain to a party how a decision was reached so that the party can consider whether or not to proceed with a review. Thirdly, insofar as Ms Watson foreshadowed that the landlord will seek to overturn the compensation order on the grounds that the hot water system was at all times operational, that argument appears to overlook the finding of the Tribunal that the compensation was for inconvenience to the tenants in the length of time it took to have the oven and other repairs attended to.
12. Mr and Mrs Green told the Tribunal that none of the orders of the Tribunal were complied with within the time the Tribunal set but agreed that the upstairs hot water system is being repaired this morning and the oven has been replaced. They have not received confirmation of the rent credit. The agent did not have a copy of the ledger to hand. The tenants oppose an adjournment of this application. They have had to take time off work to attend today. They do not wish to be required to do so again.
13. On the other hand, the prejudice to Mr and Mrs Green is reduced by the fact that the orders are now, albeit belatedly, being complied with.
14. Taking into account all of the circumstances, it would be unfair to the tenants to now grant an adjournment until July. I am not satisfied that the landlord has formulated a basis for the review. I am not satisfied that the landlord has acted diligently to take advice so that the landlord may understand whether the decision should be reviewed. Further, the landlord has not complied with the Tribunal's orders in a timely fashion.
15. The agent was not in a position to proceed with the review today. She does not have her client's instructions as to the grounds of review and says that it is a 'matter for the lawyers'.
16. The combination of all these factors satisfy me that the proceedings are being conducted in a way that unnecessarily disadvantages the tenants. On this basis, it is appropriate to dismiss the application under s 49(1) of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013. The list of matters that are set out in s 49(1) as examples of conduct that might provide a basis for such a dismissal are not exhaustive of the circumstances that might lead to a dismissal on this basis. Having said that, it is evident that the landlord has failed to comply with an order of the Tribunal without reasonable cause by not meeting the timeframe within which the Tribunal ordered certain things to occur. The conduct in respect of this review has caused the tenants to be further inconvenienced by the need to attend the Tribunal today, and have their non-compliance application adjourned pending the outcome of this hearing, when the landlord was not ready to proceed.