Landlords and tenants have been locked in a legal battle for years over whether to rent out their private spaces, with the rules changing over time.
In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court has ordered the government to ensure that private spaces are rented out by the end of the year.
The landmark ruling was announced by Justice Thomas Hughes QC, who wrote for the majority of the court on Tuesday.
“In a world where our most basic needs are met by the state, and where many of us are now burdened with debt, we need to ensure our shared spaces are available for our enjoyment and security,” he said.
“Forcing us to share space with other people, when they are not our neighbours, is an intrusion into our privacy.”
This is why I am pleased to hear that this order has now been extended to landlords.
They should not be allowed to make us pay for our private spaces.
“The law allows landlords to ask for a “rent-by-date” if they wish to rent a space out.
The government has since been trying to put an end to the practice, with a new policy which states landlords must notify tenants of a change in tenancy before the tenancy ends.
But the case highlights how little the courts have been able to do.
A tenant can only be charged rent if they have a tenancy agreement, which gives the landlord the right to use the space.
But this is not always the case.
In some cases, the tenancy agreement may not specify what rent is being charged.
The ruling, which applies to all state and territory governments, came in response to a challenge to the NSW Residential Tenancies Act.
Under the NSW Act, landlords can charge rent up to 30 days before a new tenancy ends if they can prove the tenant is no longer a tenant.
But it does not say what that rent is.
If a tenant does not have a fixed-term tenancy agreement then the tenancy will end on the date they have moved out, unless the tenancy is fixed-tenancy or a long-term arrangement has been entered into.
The NSW Government had argued that the law should not apply to landlords because they had a fixed term agreement with the tenant, which could be extended.
The case was brought by the Australian Council for Residential Tenancy (ACRTA), which represents the interests of landlords and tenants.
The ACLT argued that this meant the NSW law could not be applied because landlords had a right to charge a rent at the end, and the legislation did not apply.
Justice Hughes ruled that this was not correct.”
The relevant section of the Residential Tenants Act is to be read in the context of the principle that there should be a relationship between the landlord and the tenant and that the tenant must be entitled to the full value of the property the landlord owns,” he wrote.”
So there is no need for the law to be interpreted in this way.
It is, rather, intended to provide a reasonable guide to the nature of the relationship between tenant and landlord.
“The court also found that landlords and residents were not able to agree about what rent they would charge for private spaces.
Justice David Williams, who was joined in the majority by Justice Charles Hilliard, said: “We are not suggesting that there is a conflict between the law and the landlord.
“But the law must apply in all cases to ensure fairness to all who have a right of occupancy in a property.”
The decision is expected to be appealed to the Supreme Commission for Racial Equality.
Topics:law-crime-and-justice,housing,law-enforcement,housing-industry,housingpolicy,property-management,community-and_society,property,housing—state-issues,april-july,nsw,brisbane-4000More stories from New South Wales