The applicant sought that the Tribunal orders be set aside and that the third respondent be removed as a tenant on the basis that the property had been deemed suitable for the purposes of the applicant's home detention bail, and that if the third respondent remained in the property, the applicant would be in breach of the intervention order. The applicant contended that the third respondent would be unable to maintain the fresh tenancy due to her financial circumstances and likelihood of non-payment of rent. The applicant further submitted that the termination of the tenancy would cause difficulties for his employment.

The third respondent contended for the correctness of the original decision and that she would experience hardship if not permitted to continue living at the premises on the basis of caring for her children.

Held, affirming the original orders but varying the date of termination:

• The original decision-maker correctly exercised the discretion of the Tribunal to bring the tenancy to an end under s 89A and direct the landlords to enter into a fresh tenancy.
• There was no valid basis in these circumstances for the Tribunal to terminate the third respondent's rights under the tenancy agreement.
• It was appropriate to vary the date of termination to allow the applicant to submit to the Court an alternative address for home detention bail.

Internal review - Residential Tenancy - Tenant application - Termination and vacant possession - Domestic abuse

Residential Tenancies Act 1995 s 89A

South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 s 70

Ms Amadio, Women's Domestic Violence Court Assistance Service, appeared in person for the third responded who appeared by telephone

Made under the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 s 70(6)(a)

Made under the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 s 70(6)(b)

1. This application was concerned with a joint tenancy that was entered into in December 2024 by both the applicant, Mr Scanlon-Tonkin, and one of the respondents, Ms Pollock.
2. On 1 May 2025, the Tribunal made orders pursuant to s 89A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1995 which resulted that the tenancy would terminate on 15 May 2025 and that following termination of this joint tenancy, the landlord be directed to enter into a new tenancy agreement with Ms Pollock, to continue until the original tenancy end date. The Tribunal also made other orders related to inspection and requiring the landlords to provide a statement of claims, if desired.
3. This application for internal review was brought by Mr Scanlon-Tonkin who sought orders to set aside the original decision, allowing him to remain as the tenant of the property, and orders for Ms Pollock to be removed as a tenant from the residential tenancy agreement.
4. It was made known to me by both parties in these proceedings that an interim intervention order is in place which prohibits contact between Mr Scanlon-Tonkin and Ms Pollock and prohibits him from coming within 20 metres of her. Mr Scanlon-Tonkin also advised me that he is on home detention bail in respect of charges in relation to which Ms Pollock is the complainant. His bail address is the tenancy premises.

1. In this hearing, Mr Scanlon-Tonkin appeared in person. His employer and his employer's wife also attended in support of him.
2. Ms Pollock was represented by Ms Amadio who is a lawyer from the Women's Domestic Violence Court Assistance Service, who appeared in person. Ms Pollock also attended via telephone.
3. The landlords were unable to attend due to medical reasons. I had available written submissions provided by them in relation to both the original hearing and this internal review.
4. Mr Scanlon-Tonkin's position was that he would like to reside in the property. He submitted that he is currently on home detention bail and that the Court has deemed this premises as suitable residence for this purpose. He submitted that in order to comply with both the conditions of the intervention order (which does not permit for him to contact Ms Pollock) and the home detention bail agreement (which requires that he stay at this premises), he should be allowed to remain and Ms Pollock should not. Mr Scanlon-Tonkin contended that his current address allows him to attend to his job as a truck driver.
5. Mr Scanlon-Tonkin also said that Ms Pollock remaining as a sole tenant under the Tribunal's orders would not be sustainable, and that she would be unable to pay rent as required. In support of this proposition, he raised the issue that while he was incarcerated for two weeks, Ms Pollock had vacated the premises and failed to pay rent.
6. Ms Amadio submitted, on behalf of Ms Pollock, that the decision made by the Tribunal on 1 May 2025 was the correct and preferable one. She contended that the original Tribunal Member correctly considered the relevant factors as required under s 89A of the Residential Tenancies Act. She raised that significant hardship would be experienced by Ms Pollock in regard to her two children if the original order was set aside. Ms Pollock submitted that her children have already experienced much disruption and any delay to giving effect to the original order would negatively impact them.
7. I find that the original decision was correct. It appears that the process set out in the Residential Tenancies Act for terminating a tenancy where there is a valid intervention order in force against a person who resides at the residential premises for the protection of another resident, has been followed. The Tribunal exercised its discretion to bring the tenancy to an end under s 89A, and directed the landlords to enter into fresh tenancy with Ms Pollock for remainder of original term. It was clearly open for the Tribunal to take this course of action, and I have not heard anything on review that persuades me that it was not the correct decision in the circumstances.
8. Importantly, there is no valid basis for the Tribunal to terminate Ms Pollock's rights under the tenancy agreement. If non-payment of rent occurs once the fresh tenancy commences, the onus is on the landlords to bring an application to the Tribunal in that case to terminate the tenancy.
9. In considering hardship, I find that while Mr Scanlon-Tonkin may find it difficult to secure new accommodation and make the appropriate Court arrangements to vary his bail arrangements, requiring him to move out of the premises will likely not preclude him from continuing in his employment.
10. While I find it appropriate to affirm the original decision, I will allow the applicant further time to apply to the Court to put forward an alternative address for his home detention bail agreement and to find alternative living arrangements. While the applicant asked for an approximate extension of three weeks, I find that one week is appropriate given the circumstances in which Ms Pollock and the children are currently not at the premises despite having a legal right to be there.
11. I will alter the inspection date to reflect the new date of vacant possession, and to accommodate the landlord's request that it occur on a weekend. Because of the short gap between vacant possession and the inspection, Ms Pollock would be well-advised to photograph the interior and exterior of the premises before resuming living at the house.

1. Order 1 of the Tribunal made on 1 May 2025 is varied such that:
   1. The tenancy will terminate on Wednesday 21 May 2025 and the landlord may have possession of the property from midday on that day. This order may be enforced by the Tribunal bailiff.
2. Order 3 of the of the Tribunal made on 1 May 2025 is varied such that the date for inspection is Saturday 24 May 2025.
3. Orders 2, 4 and 5 of the Tribunal made on 1 May 2025 are affirmed.