MacGregor v Southern Cross Community Housing Ltd [2026] NSWCATAP 123;

1. On 14 May 2025 the landlord lodged an application with the Tribunal seeking termination of the tenancy due to non-payment of rent, and vacant possession.
2. The Tribunal made the following orders on 2 September 2025:

"1 The Tribunal makes an order under the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 terminating the residential tenancy agreement immediately, as the tenant has breached the agreement by failing to pay rent or charges.

2 The Tribunal orders the Residential Tenancy Agreement is terminated immediately and vacant possession is to be given to the landlord on the date of termination.

3 The Tribunal makes an order under section 114(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010, that the order for possession is suspended until 30 September 2025.

4 The tenant is to pay the landlord a daily occupation fee at the rate of $34.17 per day from the day after the date of termination, 03 September 2025 , until the date vacant possession is given.

5 The landlord may request the relisting of this application to determine the occupation fee owing, within 60 days from the date of possession.

6 The Tribunal orders that the respondent Ann Hetherington-gregory (sic) is to pay the applicant Southern Cross Community Housing Ltd Trading As Southern Cross Housing the sum of $2,564.60, on or before 30 September 2025.

2. water usage arrears (14/2/25 to 2/9/25) $119.96"

1. The Tribunal gave oral reasons for the decision.

1. After lodging this appeal, on 30 September 2025 the tenant filed a Miscellaneous Application. It seeks the following orders:

Protection order against scch ADDED NOTE: I don't owe them anything, but they owe me a fortune."

1. The tenant stated the grounds of the Miscellaneous Application as follows:

IT'S A FEDERAL MATTER - matter to be transferred into the correct court ... which is the rule for ncat.

ORDERS OF Greg Sarginson and dismissed received on the 24.9.25. I have not followed his 1 DAY TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE as don't believe he followed rules, protocol etc. to make such an order ... AND IT'S A FEDERAL MATTER. He gave SCCH 7 days BUT ME OVERNIGHT TO PERUSE ALL SCCH Evidence and raise a defence ... which they have suddenly taken back to 2023 which appears to have been heard in DECEMBER 2023 ...

Ncat already has all my bank statements dating back to 2020.

I request a Protection order against SCCH. Personal violence ignored. Fraud ignored. Assault common and physical ignored. Break, enter trespass- ignored."

(All extracts from the tenant's documents are quoted exactly as they stand in the original)

1. The attached affidavit by the tenant includes allegations of corruption, larceny, breach of Commonwealth laws, fraud, unlawful removal of the tenant's motor home by Deputy President Sarginson in collusion with NSW police, hate crime, maladministration, accounting fraud.
2. At the Call Over on 10 December 2025 the Miscellaneous Application was listed for hearing with the appeal on 8 April 2026.

1. The tenant lodged stay applications on 15 September 2025, 16 September 2025 and 26 September 2025.
2. At the Call Over on 10 December 2025 the stay applications were listed for hearing with the appeal on 8 April 2026.

(1) The Notice of Appeal lodged on 15 September 2025 with supporting documentation.

(2) Application for stay lodged 15 September 2026.

(3) Documents lodged by the tenant on 16 September 2025.

(4) Email from the tenant dated 25 September 2025 with attachments.

(5) Email from the tenant dated 26 September 2025 with attachments.

(6) Miscellaneous Application lodged 30 September 2026.

(7) Email from the tenant dated 20 October 2025 with attachments.

(8) Documents lodged by the tenant on 1 December 2025.

(9) Email from the tenant dated 8 April 2026 with attachments.

(10) Respondent's submission lodged 16 January 2026.

(11) Copy of the orders appealed against.

(12) Copy of the application appealed against.

1. The parties were directed by orders 2(d) and 3(d) made by the Appeal Panel on 10 December 2025 to lodge with the Tribunal and serve on the other party 'a typed transcript of the relevant parts of the hearing, together with the sound recording of the entire hearing'. Neither party did so.

1. The Notice of Appeal was lodged within the time required under cl 25(4)(b) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2014 (the Rules).
2. In the Notice of Appeal, the tenant seeks leave to appeal on the following basis:

(1) The decision is not fair and equitable.

(2) The decision was against the weight of evidence.

(3) Significant new evidence is now available that was not reasonably available at the time of the hearing.

In relation to this ground, the tenant states in the Notice of Appeal:

Every matter has a start - and end date. To get to the crux of this matter we must all pick it up from 2023.

SCCH LEDGERS I have personally witnessed as being CHANGED ... to suit their application.

I wasn't privy to it on the 2 sept 25. That's normal misconduct by scch. Ive been forced to sir before almost all hearings blind-folded."

1. The Notice of Appeal raises other issues, including:

"Include - Fraud + Health Care + Treatment also under Southern Cross Health"

"Conflict of Interest. COMMONWEALTH MATTERS INVOLVED. UN's civil and political rights.; and Breaches. Disability rights according to UN breached. Rights of the Child to NAME. I am a British Subject and citizen. I am a Proud Victorian. Social housing MUST transfer us. Housing NSW didn't and SCCH have carried on with that denial. The other breaches will be DEBT BONDAGE; every year since 2015 and TWICE every year. Increases can only happen once a year. NO INCREASES TO MY INCOME; member and scch locked together tried to allege IT WAS A CENTRELINK MATTER however scch had an obligation and a right to check with centrelink on the amount I/we were receiving - in case this very matter appeared scch did but refused to admit to that. CONTEMPT again ..."

1. In the Notice of Appeal, the tenant lists the following orders she says the Appeal Panel should make if the appeal succeeds:

An urgent Protection order against SCCH and all its staff members. Stay away from me ...

This matter requires an Audit by the rightful person. Ncat to allow time for that to be sought.

I seek; Full reimbursement of my moneys paid to scch

I seek compensation for the cruel and inhumane acts committed against me who are sitting inside this...agreement. by all other tenants and anors By ADF. Centrelink. Police including AFP. Hospitals. RFS. Ambulance NSW.

I want to be relocated HOME to Victoria. Ignored was Minster Ajarkas letter to scch under NDIS.

1. An appeal does not simply provide a losing party the opportunity to run their case again: Ryan v BKB Motor Vehicle Repairs Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCATAP 39 at [10].
2. Rather, to succeed in an appeal, s 80(2) of the NCAT Act provides that the appellant must demonstrate either:

(1) An error on a question of law which generally may be argued as of right; or

(2) That permission (or "leave") to appeal should be granted to bring the appeal on any other grounds.

1. The meaning of a "question of law" was discussed in detail by the Appeal Panel in Unique Commercial Group Pty Ltd v Cusumano [2024] NSWCATAP 204 (Cusumano) at [25]-[40].
2. A pure question of law does not depend on the facts found, and the question of law must be, self-evidently, a question of law and does not depend on the answer given to the question. A question of law is distinct from a mixed question of fact and law, for which leave to appeal is required.
3. Examples of questions of law include the matters set out in Prendergast v Western Murray Irrigation Ltd [2014] NSWCATAP 69 ("Prendergast") at [13] and _Cusumano a_t [32] and include a misapplication of the law, a failure to follow mandatory legal procedures, a denial of procedural fairness, or a decision based on incorrect legal principles. However, the categories of question of law are not closed (Cusumano at [37]-[39]).
4. In circumstances where an appellant is not legally represented, it is appropriate for the Appeal Panel to look at the grounds of appeal generally, and to determine whether a question of law has in fact been raised, subject to any procedural fairness considerations that might arise to the respondent: Prendergast at [12]; see also Cominos v Di Rico [2016] NSWCATAP 5 at [13].
5. We have engaged in that process. While not identified in the Notice of Appeal, the tenant's oral submissions (outlined below) raise a question of law: whether the tenant was denied procedural fairness because she was "not allowed to speak at all" during the hearing.

1. Clause 12 of Sch 4 of the NCAT Act provides that, the Appeal Panel may grant leave to appeal a decision from the Consumer and Commercial division (CCD) pursuant to section 80(2)(b) of the NCAT Act, only if it is satisfied that the appellant may have suffered a substantial miscarriage of justice because:

(1) The decision of the Tribunal under appeal was not fair and equitable; or

(2) The decision of the Tribunal under appeal was against the weight of evidence; or

(3) Significant new evidence has arisen (being evidence that was not reasonably available at the time the proceedings under appeal were being dealt with).

1. The Appeal Panel considered the meaning of a substantial miscarriage of justice for the purposes of cl 12 of sch 4 of the NCAT Act in Collins v Urban [2014] NSWCATAP 17 at [76] stating that a substantial miscarriage of justice 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."

1. The principles to be applied by an Appeal Panel in determining whether leave to appeal should be granted are well settled. In Collins v Urban the Appeal Panel concluded at [84] that:

"(1) In order to be granted leave to appeal, the applicant must demonstrate something more than that the primary decision maker was arguably wrong in the conclusion arrived at or that there was a bona fide challenge to an issue of fact: BHP Billiton Ltd v Dunning [2013] NSWCA 421 at [19] and the authorities cited there, Nakad v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2014] NSWCATAP 10 at [45];

(2) Ordinarily it is appropriate to grant leave to appeal, only in matters that involve:

(b) questions of public importance or matters of administration or policy which might have general application; or

(c) an injustice which is reasonably clear, in the sense of going beyond merely what is arguable, or an error that is plain and readily apparent which is central to the Tribunal's decision and not merely peripheral, so that it would be unjust to allow the finding to stand; or

(d) a factual error that was unreasonably arrived at and clearly mistaken; or

(e) the Tribunal having gone about the fact-finding process in such an unorthodox manner or in such a way that it was likely to produce an unfair result so that it would be in the interests of justice for it to be reviewed."

1. At the hearing of the appeal the tenant provided extensive oral submissions, including:

(1) She was "not allowed to speak at all" during the Tribunal hearing.

(2) She does not owe the respondent any rent or water arrears.

(3) The respondent has no entitlement to increase her rent twice per year.

(4) The respondent filed 2 applications in around April 2025, withdrawing the first but immediately proceeding with the second and therefore obtaining orders against her illegally. This was an abuse of process.

(5) The respondent has engaged in accounting fraud.

(6) Centrelink put the appellant under a 'deeming rate' between 2020 and 2025 which caused her hardship.

(7) The 'Debt Collectors Act' does not allow debt to accumulate to the extent it has.

(8) The residential premises do not have separate water meters and therefore the respondent is not entitled to charge for water usage.

(9) The respondent has hacked her computer system.

(10) The respondent's conduct has been vicious and malicious.

(11) There has been an "accumulation of injustice" from past Tribunal proceedings and the actions of the respondent.

(1) The tenant has breached the tenancy agreement by failing to pay the full rent.

(2) The tenant has been paying rent at the 2023 assessment of $401.00 per fortnight, whereas the current rent is $488.66 per fortnight.

(3) The tenant is currently 103 days in arrears, an amount of $3573.00.

(4) The respondent continues to try and work with the tenant and has put her in touch with local support services.

(5) The respondent does not wish to see the tenant homeless or accumulate further debt.

1. In the absence of a party lodging the sound recording or transcript, we cannot be satisfied that the tenant was "not allowed to speak" during the hearing and was denied procedural fairness.
2. A transcript or sound recording is an important aspect of an appeal particularly where the Tribunal gave oral reasons.
3. An Appeal Panel must know what the Tribunal's reasons for decision were in order to determine whether there was some error in those reasons.
4. Without a transcript or sound recording we cannot be satisfied that the Tribunal's decision was not fair and equitable or the orders were inconsistent with the evidence or the weight of the evidence.
5. The Appeal Panel has adopted this approach in circumstances where the sound recording or transcript of the hearing at first instance has not been supplied on an appeal: Whear v Kids on Hayes Street Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCATAP 123 at [22]- [26]; Geracitano v Cloughessy [2021] NSWCATAP 329 at [23]- [27]; Lazaris v Kale [2022] NSWCATAP 36 at [23]- [28].
6. Further, without the transcript it is not possible to determine whether the Tribunal had regard to the mandatory factors of s 154E of the RT Act in exercising its discretion to terminate the tenancy.
7. The tenant did not identify significant new evidence that was not reasonably available at the hearing.
8. A focus of the tenant's submissions related to previous Tribunal decisions, including that of Member Ash, which are not the subject of this appeal.
9. The tenant also raised issues about Centrelink's application of a deeming rate and its assessment of her income. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to review Centrelink decisions. Nor does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to review a social housing provider's decision to vary or cancel a rent rebate (which, we note, may be affected by changes to a tenant's Centrelink benefits): see NSW Land and Housing Corporation v Pinchin [2025] NSWCATAP 128.
10. We are satisfied that the Notice of Termination, residential tenancy agreement and rental ledger were before the Tribunal at first instance. There is no error in the Tribunal's decision evident from those documents. We are satisfied that those documents establish that:

(1) The tenant breached the tenancy agreement by failing to pay rent and water.

(2) The tenant was more than 14 days behind in rent on the date that the termination notice was issued by the landlord.

(3) The written notice of termination was prepared and served in accordance with the legislative requirements.

(4) The tenant was given 14 days or more to vacate the premises in accordance with the termination notice.

(5) The tenant has failed to vacate the premises as required.

(6) The application to the Tribunal was lodged within the required time.

1. We conclude that we are not satisfied the tenant may have suffered a substantial miscarriage of justice for any of the reasons identified in s 80(2)(b) of the NCAT Act.
2. Even if we are wrong in this regard, we would not exercise our discretion in relation to any of the categories in Collins v Urban.
3. Leave to appeal is therefore refused and the appeal is dismissed.
4. We also dismiss the tenant's Miscellaneous Application filed 30 September 2025 for the following reasons:

(1) The Tribunal and the Appeal Panel does not have power to transfer these proceedings to the Federal Court;

(2) The Tribunal and the Appeal Panel does not have power to make a 'protection' order against the landlord;

(3) We note that Deputy President Sarginson presided over two Call Overs of this appeal. The request to "remove" him from the proceedings is now otiose. In any event, considering the well-established legal tests, we note there is no persuasive evidence of actual bias or apprehended bias on his part (Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] HCA 63; (2000) 205 CLR 337; Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legeng (2001) 205 CLR 507).

1. The appeal being dismissed, it follows that the stay applications are also dismissed.

(1) Leave to appeal is refused.

(2) The appeal is dismissed.

(3) The Miscellaneous Application is dismissed.

(4) The applications for stay are dismissed.

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

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.