‘No secret ulterior motive’: Court rules in favour of social housing provider in evicting woman

A woman said to be an abuse survivor and suffering a disability has been evicted from public housing – with her fight winding all the way up to the Supreme Court. What a judge found >

A former Housing Tasmania unit. Picture: Supplied

A mother-of-four said to have escaped an abusive relationship and surviving on the disability support pension has been evicted from temporary public housing accommodation – with her fight winding all the way up to the Supreme Court.

The Hobart woman was first granted tenancy of the premises, which was owned by Housing Tasmania and managed by Centacare, in August 2022 – but for the majority of her time there, had been behind in her rent payments.

In early February this year, when her arrears amounted to $1355, she was served with a notice to vacate.

By late February, Centacare filed an application with the Magistrates Court seeking an order for her to leave.

A hearing was held on March 18, with the woman to be represented by the Tenants Union of Tasmania.

However the woman did not turn up, with the Tenants Union bowing out and the hearing taking place ex-parte in her absence.

Magistrate Andrew McKee made the order for vacant possession – but the woman has since appealed this decision, arguing the reason for the order was not “genuine or just” and that the matter should have been adjourned in her absence.

The woman, who said she was a multiple sclerosis sufferer, said she was in a car accident on her way to court on the day in question and had been required to wear a neck brace.

She also said she thought that as she had briefed a lawyer, he would be able to obtain an adjournment in her absence.

The woman said she didn’t believe she was being asked to vacate because her rent was in arrears, but because she was in temporary accommodation and had refused an offer from Housing Tasmania because she believed she might not be safe there.

In his newly-published judgment, Supreme Court Chief Justice Alan Blow said the magistrate had clear evidence of the woman’s rental arrears, which had been growing.

In reaching his decision that the eviction was just, Mr McKee said the tenancy agreement created “mutual obligations” between the owner and the tenant, with possession of the property in exchange for payment of rent.

“I’m aware that this is social housing. I’m acutely aware that there are significant pressures on social housing and significant waiting lists,” Mr McKee said at the time.

“I’m also of the view it’s just in the circumstances that (the woman) is occupying social housing to the exclusion of others who would qualify for social housing.”

In dismissing her appeal, Chief Justice Blow said it was clear the premises were intended to be transitional accommodation, and that the woman was behind on her rent.

“There was nothing in the material before the learned magistrate to suggest that Centacare had a secret ulterior motive for wanting to evict the appellant,” he said.

The judge also found the magistrate had the power to enter a final decision in the woman’s absence from court.

Follow @ambervwilson