Tenancy Tribunal: Abuse of the Tribunal’s Process for Furtherance of Fraud
About the Article
Cogitare Aude was requested to suppress the name of the author of the article published below. It was disclosed that the author of the article was not a party in the CTTT case – reported in that article.
Cogitare Adude was also informed that a Tribunal Order has been made to protect the identity of the responding party in any published reports of the proceedings. Accordingly, due care was taken not to publish any personal identifiers of that party.
Cogitare Aude was also informed that the responding party in that dispute was not yet informed about the pending publication of the article. Cogitare Aude strongly advised the author to get a formal approval for publishing of the works at least from the responding party involved in the proceedings.
Since the case described in the article is an interesting one, in that it relates to what can only be described as profound corruption in the Tribunal’s handling of the case, in consideration to the conduct of the Applicant (as per Applicant’s own evidence delivered, for example: Applicant’s mp4 file recording her own defecation & her letter of intimidation i.e. evidence of her engagement in malicious, frivolous & vexatious litigation) in that case. This makes the “Toilet Lid“ case of high public interest, for which reason Cogitare Aude decided to publish the article.
For fairness in journalism Cogitare Aude did approach the Applicant in the CTTT proceedings in question for her comment on accuracy of the facts covered in the article.
Consequently, the Applicant was provided with due opportunity to address any issues that may have been perceived by her as incorrect, and was requested to provide evidence in respect of those issues of contention to secure necessary corrections and to assist fair reporting.
For the purpose of fair reporting of Tribunal proceedings Cogitare Aude was provided apart from the article itself also with large amount of supporting materials which appeared to have been submitted to the Tribunal as evidence.
Upon review of the supplied material Cogitare Aude noticed that majority of the content of the article supplied for publishing is copied and pasted directly from the Tribunal’s Submissions of the parties as well as relevant Tribunal materials including evidence tendered.
Consequent to this and also considering the purpose of the article to report the author’s views and perceptions of corruption in the Tenancy Tribunal Cogitare Aude, did not find it necessary to contact the Tribunal for comment.
The article was finally published as supplied (with minor corrections) on 08/09/2013 at 6:46PM after no response from the Applicant in the proceedings was provided.
Consequently, the views expressed in the article displayed on the Cogitare Aude pages or related posts, are not those of Cogitare Aude, but those of the original author(s) of the works supplied and/or displayed.
All the images and relevant personal information were provided by the author and appeared to have been obtained from public sources on the internet and from the Tribunal evidence files supplied.
Acknowledgement of Internet Sources publicly available around the time of publishing:
Cogitare Aude noticed that some of the sites are no longer operative and/or the Applicant’s personal information from the relevant sites has been removed. Cogitare Aude however received, together with the article, the original pdf & images downloads of the sites while they still contained the personal information.
Cogitare Aude has sent the following email on 02/09/13 to firstname.lastname@example.org:
“Dear Ms Williams
Cogitare Aude was recently approached by an author of an article with a Title: “Tenancy Tribunal: Abuse of the Tribunal’s Process for Furtherance of Fraud: The Toilet Lid Case” which we are attaching for your comment.
We understand that the author is not a party in the dispute and that the responding party in the dispute may not have yet been informed about the pending publication of the article.
Since our aim is to report corruption, but at the same time wish to report fairly, we wish to provide you with due opportunity to review the article for correctness of facts.
Kindly provide supporting evidence on any issues of contention (preferably as an email attachment in pdf format) to assist us with necessary corrections.
We will only alter facts which are supported by evidence.
We will also endeavour to correctly report (on your express request) any relevant views you may wish to share on our platform.
The deadline for your comment is COB 04/09/2013.
If we do not receive your response by that time, we will assume you agree with the correctness of the author’s facts and will go ahead with publishing of the article as is.
No response was achieved.
The Toilet Lid Case: Author’s Thoughts & Opinion
This Post relates to the “Corruption in Tribunals” page.
Who is Mary?
In a nutshell, Mary or Mary Spiers Williams (with full name: Mary Anne Elizabeth Jane Spiers Williams) is a malicious, disrespectful and dishonest person who lies to people, to Court or Tribunal, and cheats (instead of supports) the very system which she is a citizen of. In 2015, Mary was rewarded for her dishonesty and disrespect of the legal system by being appointed as a lecturer in law at the Australian National University, and teaches criminal law, evidence and ethics of which the latter two are simply not in her dictionary.
Mary Spiers Williams misrepresented her self (in 2011) as being a criminal lawyer providing pro bono legal services. However, subsequent investigation revealed that she is not registered as a lawyer and did not practice law for many years.
She also represented her self being an university academic who among else also lectured evidence law, as well as PhD candidate on an APA scholarship who was also awarded with a generous research grant. She revealed in the Tribunal’s proceedings that she also has 3 times the teaching load of a full-time lecturer. She is also the Applicant in what is here referred to as the “Toilet Lid Case“.
While Mary represents her self as an university academic who among else also lectured evidence law (when she sees fit), in her Toilet Lid Case however (in 2012) she swore under oath that (quoting): “… because I didn’t understand about evidence …” in response to a question as to why did she write so many false allegations of criminal nature against the Owner into her CTTT Applications as well as her Statutory Declarations.
Mary’s Declared Original Motivation to Litigate
Mary declared in her correspondence to the Owner that her original motivation behind pursuing her misconceived claim in CTTT was her wish to recover her husband’s expenses (who was not a party to the Luxury Holiday Accommodation Contract) for repair of the Toilet Lid negligently broken by him by inappropriately sitting on the lid (instead of the seat) while cutting his nails.
It is common knowledge that most toilet lids are generally not designed to be sat on, as opposed to the toilet seats – hence the terminology seat versus lid.
Quoting the Applicant from her email dated 07/08/12, from her CTTT Application/Submission filed 17/08/12:
“. . . the toilet seat broken when Cris was sitting on it, cutting his nails.”
Further quoting the Applicant from her Letter dated 30/08/2012 [pg 1 of 10, par 03] to the Respondent in response to his Contract Termination Notice to her:
“In my view, the trigger for this Notice has been the threat of legal action by me 3 days prior in respect of recompense for the replacement of the toilet seat, ….”
“We assert this damage was a result of fair wear and tear”, and “We are in dispute about damage that we assert is fair wear and tear, which we are happy to have adjudicated by a court or other tribunal,…”
Mary Spiers Williams complained in her Statutory Declaration [at 56] on page 6 (quoting): “On 15 May 2012, [the Respondent’s Assistant] had emailed my husband and told him to go ahead with the purchase of a replacement toilet seat he had broken when sitting on the lid (having previously required that it be the same expensive model).”
Mary Spiers Williams claimed, in order to escape liability, that the premises were not luxurious premises despite:
- she previously complained that the installed toilet lid was of too expensive model – when required to be replaced by her husband
- she signed Luxury Holiday Accommodation Contract, and
- the Luxury Holiday Accommodation Contract in its clause cl.9.1 relevantly provided (quoting): “The Grantor agrees to deliver the residential premises in their advertised condition i.e. as luxurious and absolutely clean” – as opposed to just reasonably clean, and
- the Luxury Holiday Accommodation Contract in its clause cl.9.3 relevantly provided (quoting): “The term “Luxurious Accommodation” attempts to describe premises of a High Standard that are fully functional, absolutely clean and of new and modern appearance”, and
- the “Ingoing Condition Report” disclosed on the top that the premises were Newly Renovated, and
- the “Ingoing Condition Report” reflected that the premises were absolutely (as opposed to just reasonably) clean, new and fully functional, and
- this above standard condition of the premises was agreed on by Mary Spiers Williams by signing the “Ingoing Condition Report” and the Photographic Part 2 of the Luxury Holiday Accommodation Contract, and
- the premises only featured expensive luxurious fixtures such as the Semi Frameless Grange Stegbar Shower, custom designed kitchen/living room built-in furniture (not a standard flat pack), designer light fittings, high quality stain less steel oven and ceramic cook top, fully vitrified Italian tiles with acoustic bonding for maximum style, comfort and privacy (representing around $50,000 renovation bill).
Tribunal Orders Sought by Mary
Mary in her CTTT Application dated 17/08/2012 sought, among others, also the following Orders:
- Order under s.11 of the RTA 2010 (NSW) to change the Short Term Luxury Holiday Occupancy Contract into standard Residential Tenancy Agreement after 8 months of reliance on the Short Term Luxury Holiday Occupancy Contract, i.e. after 8 months of use of the premises as Holiday Apartment, after her 3 month fixed term contract was extended twice.
- An Order to extend the 3 months Holiday Contract to a 18 months fixed term Standard Residential Tenancy Agreement despite explicitly declaring being in fear for her life.
- An Order under s.187(1)(a) to ban the Owner from any direct communications with the Occupant, seeking for the Owner to communicate with her always and strictly only via the Tribunal.
- Order under s.73(a) of the RTA 2010 (NSW) to change the lock to the apartment and to lock the Owner out on the grounds of being in fear for her life, for her psychological health and for her possessions.
(No valid examples of Owner’s alleged conduct reasonably capable of causing her such fear were identified and no evidence of any such conduct was ever identified or produced.)
In this regard all Owners & Landlords need to be warned about the combined effect of the s.190(1) RTA 2010 (NSW) & the Part 5 cl.22(9) Residential Tenancies Regulation 2010 (NSW) quoting:
“(9) For the purposes of section 190 (1) of the Act, the prescribed period for making an application for an order in relation to a breach of a residential tenancy agreement or proposed agreement is within 3 months after the applicant becomes aware of the breach.”
It strongly appears to the author of the article that Mary, as a skilled lawyer, attempted to abuse the above legislative provision for improper purpose – specifically to escape any and all liability through trickery – which she would likely had achieved if her request to lock out the Owner and to ban all business related communication was successful. This would have left the Owner paralyzed and unable to effectively respond to and investigate any damage notifications due to the added expense, hence allowing the Applicant to abuse the Fair Wear & Tear provision as well as the Tribunal’s process.
Considering the perceived “expertise“, “fairness” & “transparency” of the Tribunal (see further below) it was reported by the author that the Owner’s Assistant considers herself very lucky to have successfully argued for termination of the contract and to have evaded what still strongly appears in her mind to have been the main original aim of the Occupant before the contract was terminated.
- Mary also sought an Order under s.187(1)(d) to financially compensate her for trespass to her privacy purportedly occasioned by the Owner’s Assistant by attending her university class in which she was enrolled from Monday, 21 November 2011, 3:42PM which is one month prior to ever meeting Mary on 24/12/11.
While Mary wrote in her Statutory Declaration dated 01/03/2013 [at 2] that she had only (quoting): “in principle agreement to teach at UNSW” around the 24/12/11. This means that she did not have an actual binding contract at that stage – for which reason her name was not yet published in the UNSW Student’s on-line Timetables around 24/12/11. She appeared to have earlier claimed however, under oath, in the Hearing 22/02/13, that she had already her UNSW appointment secured.
It strongly appears to the Owner’s Assistant that this statement dated 22/02/13 was made for the purpose of giving misleading testimony to the Tribunal to argue that the UNSW student timetable link was an adequate proof of her employment at UNSW which she furnished to the Owner’s Assistant on 24/12/11 – on the basis of which, and in absence of any other material or any Residential References, and before any contract negotiations even started, she purportedly successfully negotiated on her first viewing appointment 24/12/11 some sort of valid Oral Residential Tenancy Agreement. The Applicant mislead the Tribunal that the Owner had later changed his mind and changed his offer to a Short Term Luxury Holiday Occupancy Contract despite the Applicant responded to an advert offering Holiday Occupancy.
The Member noted in the Hearing that the Applicant was in fact responding to a Holiday Occupancy advert and that she signed Short Term Luxury Holiday Occupancy Contract.
The Tribunal accepted this false testimony and rejected an actual relevant evidence in form of a complete, written and formal Holiday Contract (containing 5 Parts) and in it attached under Part 5 Mary’s own separately signed Declaration (quoting): “On (insert date) 24.12.2011 – I submitted a Luxury Holiday Accommodation Reservation Form and paid a reservation fee amounting to the first week’s rent.”
This is commonly referred to as Wednesbury Unreasonableness and represents valid ground (jurisdictional error) for External Appeal to the Supreme Court – to those who can afford it – which most people can not – hence not having real recourse and no real access to justice.
In any event, if Mary’s statement in the Hearing 22/02/13 – that she had already her UNSW appointment secured – was true it would then most likely follow that when Mary turned up for her 1-st apartment viewing session on 24/12/11 she already had an access to her preliminary student class list generated automatically by the UNSW on-line NSS system – which would have reflected that the Owner’s Assistant was enrolled in Mary’s Criminal Law C class from Monday, 21 November 2011, 3:42PM (as per Owner’s evidence in Folio 40-48 filed 24/01/13).
This would explain why Mary intentionally failed to admit and to further inquire with the Owner’s Assistant about a possibility of a ‘Conflict of Interest‘ down the track when the Assistant fully disclosed already on the very first viewing session on 24/12/11 that she is studying law at UNSW.
Mary, as a lawyer and a university academic claiming to have secured a contract at UNSW, was highly likely to have known or anticipated that she either already had a ‘Conflict of Interest‘, or at least that it was likely to arise – which she inappropriately failed to disclose in order not to lose the apartment.
Had Mary disclosed her ‘Conflict of Interest‘, it could and would have been easily solved by Owner’s non-engagement in negotiations and by sending her on her way to find another rental accommodation – had she fairly provided such opportunity.
It is also noted for the record – that had Mary been really interested in a Standard Residential Agreement as she claimed in her testimony – she would have most likely have secured one – had she provided the necessary Residential References – as there was and still is an oversupply of standard residential tenancy units in the area.
Quoting Mary from Table 06 Transcript of Recording Extract: Contract Formation & Negotiation:
“Julie I spoke – she didn’t come back to me – she is my – we didn’t really have landlords – we were in Canberra because we stayed with family and things like that – we’ve got lot of family down there – and Julie is the longest landlady I’ve had – and there is an Allice Springs landlord that I’ve been waiting for reply to my email – so I just need to – maybe because in Alice Springs they shut down – you know – it’s like summer time up there – yea – I think they must have shut their office last week early before Christmas eve — we rented through a landlord – you know – the Professionals – Real Estate Agents – so – we had a house for a year – so – that’s probably a best one – but Julie – I rented from her probably for 5 year when I was here – she was great!“
“… rented weekender from friends – recently house sat for a friend …”
and also quoting Mary from Table 03 Transcript of Recording Extract: Contract Formation & Negotiation)
“… for us to give up extra $2000 is – you know – why do we need to give up this when there is gonna come a lot of properties onto the market in January – you know – there’s a lot of properties coming onto the market in January – and that sort of things …“
After Mary secured her occupancy and only after the UNSW classes already started she then went to the Course Coordinator and asked for the Owner’s Assistant to be removed from her class on the grounds of “Potential Conflict of Interest“.
However, as there were no alternative classes available (all booked out) at that stage (with the rest being not fitting due to timetable clashes), and also due to no assistance from the UNSW (despite requested) the Owner’s Assistant was forced to withdraw from the UNSW completely – which unduly delayed her carrier.
Mary then wrote the following to the Owner’s Assistant in an email dated 02/03/12 (Folio 52 – filed 17/08/12) quoting:
“I’m writing this email at 9:30pm after a really long first week, and annoyingly after I’ve tried to answer your email twice – first the iPhone crashed and then somehow my computer shut down by itself when I left my desk and wiped the second version. This of course is not your fault – so here I go again…! This is email is longer that it might otherwise be as I’m quite tired. Please excuse any typos or strange autocorrects that creep in. …“
“First of all, let me be plain: there is a clear conflict of interest. This is completely uncontroversial. …“
“Now, I’ll openly say: I had not immediately come to grips with this reality, and this raises in me some concern that there was already partiality on my part: rather than simply acting immediately as the conflict demanded (and as I’ve done quite easily in other comparable situations), I see now that I hesitated because I was concerned that this might upset you.
… I recall now when we were talking at the flat that you mentioned in passing that you were studying law, but I didn’t realise that it was at UNSW, nor that you were doing Criminal Law.”
Mary also wrote the following to the Owner’s Assistant in her email dated 09/03/2012, 5:45PM:
“I was sorry to hear that you have withdrawn from the Criminal Law 1 course. I’m surprised that it wasn’t able to be resolved by everyone, as it’s not that exceptional an event.”
Response from Owner’s Assitant to Mary dated 15/03/2012, 8:32PM:
I am very sorry too, mainly in regards to Sandra’s ‘Chinese Wall of Non-communication’ and her refusal to attend to her administrative responsibilities. Just to explain – I received no reply from her what so ever which effectively left me in an ‘Assessment Limbo’.
Considering the expense of the education, UNSW’s refusal to assist, my inability to transfer to another class due to timetable clashes, … – I was left with no other option. Consequently I feel having been coerced into such a decision.
This has caused me a great distress, delays as well as financial loss. … “
Mary also wrote the following to the Owner’s Assistant in her email dated 16/03/2012, 1:39PM:
“All – literally all – I am hired to do is teach at UNSW. I have no role at all in relation to administration. As it is I barely have enough time to prepare, teach and mark. I have no time nor is it my role to even consider the other matters that you raise. I’m not going to go into the issue of the conflict of interest; I’ve already explained in detail what that was; …, . I repeat to be clear: I don’t have the time to address whatever your concerns are, it’s not my job and I don’t want to.
My email was intended to offer sympathy, that is all.”
The following was written by Mary in her Tribunal Application 17/08/12 Chronology Table on page 2, 1-st row (quoting):
“[The Owner’s Assistant] mentions that she is a law student. I ask her no questions about this and no further information is proffered by her. I had in fact assumed that she was at another university, otherwise one would have expected her to mention she was in the same law school.”,
Despite all of this Mary still had the “moral fiber” to claim this kind of compensation.
- Member Simon in the Hearing 22/02/13 voluntarily provided free legal advice to Mary spontaneously offering her that, since she is unable to action Mary’s request in the way it is currently formulated (specifically requesting the Owner to surrender his Electricity Bill Originals he paid to his provider), but she could instead order the Respondent to refund the electricity paid by Mary to date. The Member said that she will find out what the law is on this issue, and will allow Mary to amend her Application accordingly – if it is misconceived for the second time. Mary immediately took up the offer and amended her CTTT Application for the second time to also include an Order for return of all of her electricity payments made to date, despite:
1.) Mary admitted in her Tribunal Application filed 17/08/12 in the attached Chronology table on pg 5 in the 4-th column, 3-rd & 4-th entries/rows from the top (quoting):
“MSW sends SMS … to [Owner’s Assistant] requesting the original electricity bills … be posted to [Mary’s mail box]”, and “[Owner’s Assistant] emails that has received SMS, and will not post but will hand at the next cash payment of rent”
2.) Mary also earlier admitted in her Sworn Hearing Testimony on 22/02/13 that she does not believe that she was overcharged or improperly charged for electricity and that she suspects the receipts are correct.
Section 38(1)(a) of the RTA states (quoting): “A tenant must pay the following charges for the residential premises: (a) all charges for the supply of electricity, gas … or oil to the tenant at the residential premises if the premises are separately metered,”
During her occupancy, Mary was never interested to inspect and to verify the electricity bills, which was repeatedly being offered to her. She only wanted to receive the Owner’s Originals.
Clearly, there is no legislative requirement even under the RTA 2010 (NSW) for originals or any electricity receipts for that matter to be provided to tenants – but there is clear legislative requirement for electricity charges to be paid by them – consequently it strongly appears that Member Simon attempted to do much more than just legally assist Mary.
For the record, Mary was able to check the correctness of her electricity payments as she received detailed transcribed copy of the originals of the Owner’s Bills on each occasion, had full and unlimited access to the electricity meters in the building, and could have verified the current electricity rates on the internet.
Mary’s Primary Motivation – Malice
Her primary and overriding declared motivation behind running the Case was “to teach the Owner a lesson” and to cause him a maximum damage. A copy of her email dated 19/12/12 can be found in the ‘Corruption in Tribunals‘ page section. Extracted quotes:
“… we just agreed [with the Holiday Contract] so we didn’t have to keep looking …”
“… the ‘‘winning’’ is really only that you lose a lot, and it seems completely disproportionate to the scale of the dispute.”,
“I just felt: I really don’t want you to be harmed. Quite suddenly I didn’t feel like ‘‘teaching you a lesson’’ any more”,
“… To make the situation worse, your names and the property address will also be published.”
“… I asked myself: what do I really gain by pushing this hearing to the limit? I win, …, with you left facing a prosecution process, fines, a criminal history and future income loss …”
Remedy – Clearly Not Mary’s Primary Motivation
From the email dated 19/12/12, and specifically from the quotes published above, the recovery of remedy i.e. the recovery of the Bond (which was claimed by the Owner for the damages occasioned by Mary to the recently renovated luxury apartment which arose as a consequence of her multiple breaches of contract) does not really appear to be her primary goal.
Retaliatory, Malicious, Frivolous and Vexatious Litigation
Such conduct usually amounts to malicious, frivolous and vexatious litigation. The Tribunal – despite it has an overriding duty to protect its process from abuse and perjury – instead of proper inquiry actively prevented the Owner from addressing this issue. Despite relevant evidence was provided, it was treated by the Tribunal as “irrelevant”.
The Owner/Respondent never received fair opportunity to challenge the obviously false Occupant’s claims or her abuses of legal process (which was admitted by the Member to have occurred [at 4] of her Decision 02/07/13 (quoting): “… At the conclusion of three hours the Tribunal had only heard submissions and evidence relating to jurisdiction. …”, this means that the Owner was denied that right as per Deputy Registrar R. Komban on 04/01/13 (quoting): “14. … All Respondent’s concern as contained in the documentation provided with RT-ID-Witheld can and in fact must be dealt with in RT-ID-Witheld.”
After Mary’s email evidence dated 19/12/12 was brought into issue in the Hearing 22/02/13 – in response to a question as to why did she write so many false allegations of criminal nature against the Owner into her CTTT Applications – she responded while under oath (paraphrasing):
“… at the time when I made the application on the 17th of August … and then I repeated it in the application for this matter … because I didn’t understand about evidence … I was still really upset about everything that was going on – and part of these orders for this matter I’d actually sought they be prosecuted … and – as you probably gathered from the email 19/12/12 – I no more really am interested in that …”
The only events which were occurring at the time were:
- 20/07/12 – Owner’s Premises Condition Investigation Report – was sent to the Occupant – assigning liability for the reported property damages to the Occupant as a result of being occasioned by negligence and her multiple breaches of contract
- 14/08/12 – the Occupant was served with document foreshadowing the upcoming termination of her contract
- 17/08/12 – the Occupant was served with valid 2 weeks’ Termination Notice based on about 14 Breaches of Contract, inclusive of her refusal to remedy the damage and breaches
In the Hearing 22/02/13 when the Respondent attempted to cross-examine the Applicant in order to inquire about her motivation behind a particular statement (in her email 19/12/12 – which is displayed in the ‘Corruption in Tribunals‘ page section) which appeared as an admission that she is receiving substantive legal advice directly from Tribunal which encouraged her to go the Hearing – and to specifically find out whether it was in fact an admission or intimidation (amounting to contempt) – the Tribunal Member improperly stepped in and argued angrily for the Applicant with threatening attack asking whether the Respondent is alleging Tribunal’s collusion.
Naturally, consequent to the Tribunal’s duress, the Applicant’s answer was never obtained, as it also happened regarding the rest of the relevant issues on most of which the Respondent was misled by the Member.
When the Respondent attempted, in the Hearing 22/02/13, to bring into issue (and into evidence) all the Applicant’s illogical and clearly frivolous and vexatious Orders and false allegations made in her Tribunal Applications/Submissions alleging in effect Owner’s Misrepresentation/Unconscionable Conduct/Fraud (however without any evidence), the Member Simon again spontaneously offered to the Applicant that the Tribunal can deal with that on the fact that it is irrelevant and asked if it prejudices the Applicant in any way.
Quite obviously Mary’s false allegations of Misrepresentation/Unconscionable Conduct/Fraud contained in her Tribunal Applications, Submissions, Testimony & Statutory Declarations were evidently NOT IRRELEVANT – as they were regurgitated by the Member in her Decision [at 30] and repackaged into a slightly different context that the ‘Respondent intended to avoid jurisdiction of the RTA’ – which finding, given the facts as well as the Member’s own observation in the Hearing, is simply untenable (find below under Member’s Observations).
Not less significantly, in the author’s opinion, Mary perjured her self on multiple occasions during the proceedings however the Tribunal refused to take notice or action, and on each occasion allowed her to either amend her claim or to withdraw relevant statutory declarations in every instance of the Owner’s attempt to challenge, or awarded the Applicant with protection by assigning unspecific kind of “privilege” to an unprotected and contemptuous document (specifically the email 19/12/12 – displayed in the ‘Corruption in Tribunals‘ page section) which was labeled by the Applicant as (quoting): “It is my opinion about this case” [Ref: Applicant’s Table of Objection to Respondent’s Evidence, on page 9 under Attachment 34] .
Upon due analysis of the document – it is clear that it does not contain any (let alone genuine) offer to settle or mediate, does not represent legal advise, in fact it waives any that may have been obtained, and is replete with threats and admission that the litigation is malicious, frivolous and vexatious.
What the Tribunal did not do however – it did not change its Decision which was based on that withdrawn misleading material.
It also refused to give Re-hearing.
Paraphrasing the Owner – as per Tribunal’s Audio Record dated 11/06/13:
“… Ms Simon – it may be more practicable if our application is dealt with first – So that issues can be identified – or maybe there will be some overlapping – since there are issues there are issues that may result in contempt and dismissal of the malicious applicant Mary Spiers Williams … Well – new documents that came to our mailbox. … That’s a document from Electoral Commission – Ms Williams swore on oath that she registered our address with the Electoral Commision. I have a proof that is in fact not correct – as are all her other allegations …
This is not – please don’t interrupt – this is not a fishing exercise at all – you are misconceiving this. Ms Williams provided brand new evidence in her statutory declaration. There were many personal attacks and many items raised and many old and new items reiterated. Old and new. So if she – and it’s dated 1st of March – so it’s after the hearing. Since she is reinstating issues and issuing new evidences or referring to new evidences – and since they are attacking our reputation – we have a right to see and challenge those allegations – that evidence – because it was placed into statutory declaration – that is a serious thing. So we have right to challenge and see that evidence. That is the reason – since it was re-agitated – that she has to now deliver them – because she hasn’t actually delivered them yet. … – and it’s also in the Decision without evidence – and it’s false accusation – actually it’s very defamatory to me. … If she put forward these obvious lies – could I at least address those?”
Paraphrasing the Applicant – as per Tribunal’s Audio Record dated 11/06/13:
“I’m abandoning it. … I’ve just said those matters are all withdrawn”, and “the reason I have that material there is because of some uncertainty that the jurisdiction issue is somehow gonna be reopened because – yeahh – so most of the stuff in the affidavit can be stricken out”
Paraphrasing the Member – as per Tribunal’s Audio Record dated 11/06/13:
“I do not find – the tribunal does not find it necessary for all of those things to have to be summoned. You may feel it – you need to start to recognise that what you feel you require – and what the tribunal requires – may be two different things and you just going to have to deal with that. OK? So what I am going to do now is we are first of all going to deal with the application of the Tenant.”
Quoting the Applicant’s response to the Owner’s rehearing Application – filed 05/08/13:
“… The applicant explained that this affidavit evidence had been tendered to address that [jurisdiction] question. When the Tribunal member clarified that jurisdiction had been determined, the applicant indicated to the tribunal hat that evidence would not be relied upon, and sought to withdraw the tender which was granted.”
The author also reported that it strongly appears (from the above paraphrases of the statements from the Audio Record of the Hearing) to the Owner’s Assistant that Mary lied to the Tribunal in regard to the issues of Tribunal’s Jurisdiction – which statements she subsequently decided to quickly withdraw on the Owner’s attempt to challenge her testimony.
And no, the withdrawal of Mary’s tender of her Statutory Declarations was not granted, as the relevant Audio Record of the Hearing does not confirm that claim.
If it was however – of which there is no formal record – then there is no basis for the Tribunal’s Decision what so ever – as no objective factual evidence proving to the requisite standard that Tribunal has jurisdiction was produced by the Applicant to this day, with the onus of proof resting firmly on her.
Despite this, the Tribunal refused to grant the 1-st Application for Re-hearing, and it is anticipated that the same is likely occur for the second time.
We will update the report – according to new developments as they happen.
Blind Cord Perjury: another example of lack of credibility
In some of the Mary’s video files pertaining to the frayed blind cord Mary lied that the Owner refused to repair the frayed blind cord, and that the blind was so bad that it prevented Mary’s enjoyment of the property.
However Mary in the Owner’s audio evidence [Ref: Transcript of Recording Table 14] of the Inspection dated 18/07/12 repeated – in order to emphasise – that she is not requesting and in fact does not need the Owner to repair the blind cord, and that the blind is fine, fully functional and does not limit the Applicant’s enjoyment of the property:
quoting Mary: “… I mean — up to you – we don’t mind – it’s not affecting it’s use. As far as us concerned it’s perfectly fine … but – you know – as I said – we’re fine with it … I sent him an email we don’t need to – you know – we’re not asking for it to be repaired …”
quoting Owner’s assistant: “No – you didn’t”
quoting Mary: “Well – I didn’t ask for it to be repaired – I’m just letting you know that that’s what was going on – so”
Similar was stated by Mary in her 3-rd Premises Condition Report [Ref: in Owner’s Folio 150 (filed 24/01/13)] (quoting):
“… nil request for repair as does not interfere with enjoyment of property…” .
Back to the issue of jurisdiction.
Mary unambiguously stated her-self on pages 4 & 5 of her Closing Submission filed 06/03/13 that she does not have any post contract negotiation evidence except for her testimony that she originally wanted and inquired (before contract negotiations even started) about the possibility of getting a regular residential tenancy agreement – which the Owner refused to give her.
This means that she provided evidence to the Tribunal that she did not have any evidence capable to prove that she entered into a valid standard Residential Tenancy Agreement.
Contempt of Tribunal
This lack of evidence on Mary’s side did not prevent her however from expressing her “opinion about this case” & possibly also about the Tribunal’s process which she expressed through her tender of Defecating Evidence with file name: “\A. Images relevant during tenancy\IMAGES … during tenancy mostly 20110722\ IMG_1256 Please turn down sound! accidental film entry\IMG_1256 accidentally filmed entering shows opening padlocks and a little of the entrance perhaps 20110820.MOV”.
It is an audio, it is most irrelevant, offensive and disrespectful piece of evidence ever heard, it was admitted into Tribunal’s evidence, Tribunal had no objections or comments, nor did it ever place any ban on its publication. You can locate it on the “Corruption in Tribunals“ page and enjoy the sounds of Mary Spiers Williams “literally defecating”.
Remember the proceedings in Tribunals are undertaken under the “Open Court” conditions. If Mary Spiers Williams ever thought it was OK to produce this material for such purpose – then it is equally OK and in public interest to be released.
Considering that (according to Ng v Wee  NSWCTTT 396) it is the Claimant/Applicant who bears the burden of proving the existence of Residential Tenancy Agreement, and also that (according to Dayeian v Davidson  NSWCA 42) the onus of proof is quite high in that it requires the claimant to prove an existence of a valid Residential Tenancy Agreement with necessary requirements of formality of a contract which satisfies the inclusion of contractual consideration flowing both ways, and also contains a clear evidence of an intention to create legal relations and certainty in fundamental terms, and not less importantly also considering (according to Jonsson v Arkway Pty Ltd and Anor  NSWSC 815) that the Tribunal cannot just give itself jurisdiction subjectively in absence of Facts or authority of the law, and also that (according to Armstrong Jones Management Pty Ltd v Saies – Bond and Associates Pty Ltd (RLD)  NSW ADTAP 47), the Tribunal can not allow a party to bring an action for ‘misrepresentation, unconscionable conduct or fraud’ out of time due to estopel, and especially not without any evidence what so ever – while also considering that the Tribunal completely ignored all the relevant evidence, law, principles of equity & justice including good conscience – one would simply have to be forgiven for believing that the Mary’s Toilet Lid Case was a criminal abuse of legal process for furtherance of fraud, especially when Elizabeth Louise Williams just happens to be a CTTT part time member and Louise appears to be Mary’s either sister or cousin according to the following public record on http://tributes.smh.com.au/obituaries/smh-au/obituary.aspx?n=ronald-williams&pid=155715641#fbLoggedOut:
“WILLIAMS, Ronald Henry Charles
12.1.1921 – 30.1.2012
Passed away in Canberra. Beloved husband of Norma (dec).
Much loved father and father-in-law of Sue, Robert and Daphne, George and Sandra and Cherie and Dennis.
Beloved Grandpop of Mary, Catherine, Ben, Louise, Josephine, Rhys, Nico and great-grandsons Tom and Lochlan. ‘We will always love you.”
William Cole Funerals Canberra
Ph (02) 6253 3655.“
Considering that Mary’s full name is: Mary Anne Elizabeth Jane Spiers Williams, the above record may or may not be a coincidence – the fact is that it should have been properly investigated when the responding party complained about this including the obvious Bias repeatedly during the proceedings, including to the Chairperson.
Mary also misled the Tribunal when she claimed (quoting): “I … had content insurance for the apartment, was on the electoral roll at that address” in her Closing Submission filed 06/03/13. She made this statement in an attempt to prove that she used the premises as a standard residential accommodation rather than a holiday accommodation.
Evidence of an actual Perjury proving that she in fact never registered that address with electoral commission was provided to the Tribunal in the Owner’s Folio 337 (filed in the Hearing 11/06/13).
Again even such a clear and direct evidence of Perjury seriously affecting the credibility of the Applicant and the value of her unverified and unsubstantiated claims – was completely ignored by the Tribunal – as if it was never provided.
Her evidence also was that she responded to a holiday accommodation advert, applied for luxury holiday accommodation and signed a Luxury Holiday Accommodation Contract.
But she also claimed that she did not read the advert properly, misunderstood the advert and thought it also automatically offered Standard Tenancy Agreements, she though she actually applied for Standard Tenancy on the basis of some sort of unidentified and mysterious ‘Oral Agreement’, she also misread the Accommodation Application Form, thought she ticked off a 12 months standard residential agreement, and she also read the old legislation while she was clearly referring in her correspondence to the newly introduced sections from the RTA 2010 (NSW), and of-course “did not understand about evidence” despite being a criminal lawyer teaching evidence as a subject at university.
The Tribunal accepted these obviously false claims and elevated them onto the pedestal of objective factual evidence. The Holiday Accommodation Contract and in it contained separately Signed Declaration (quoting): “On (insert date) 24.12.2011 – I submitted a Luxury Holiday Accommodation Reservation Form and paid a reservation fee amounting to the first week’s rent.” – all became irrelevant considerations, as were the facts that the Applicant was a skilled criminal lawyer, gifted academic awarded with a stipend and a research grant and was at the same time a university lecturer.
This Declaration alone, signed by the vexatious Applicant Mary Spiers Williams, reveals that the validity of the Short Term Holiday Contract stayed un-refuted by the parties’ conduct or surrounding circumstances capable to show that both parties shared an objective intention to enter into a different binding contract. There simply was not any such evidence, as Mary Spiers Williams herself explicitly confirmed by stating in the hearing as well as in her Tribunal Submission that she did not have any evidence of the Owner’s engagement in misleading advertising, deceptive conduct, misrepresentation, unconscionable conduct or fraud.
Crucial facts (such as the Applicant’s Signed Declaration dated 24.12.2011, the Contract & its content) were mislabeled as irrelevant considerations despite the Tribunal’s over reliance on a WA Case Law Re Glynn; Ex Parte Royle & Ors  WASCA 122 main dictum in which expressly states that of cardinal consideration always is the signed contract, its terms and conditions, or the strategic intent expressed in it. Only when there is no contract or the contract is invalid then, and only then the consideration of subjective intention of the parties to determine the purpose of the contract is permissible.
Hill v Newth  NSWSC 298 also confirms that claimant will always have a difficult task in proving that the parties intended to be bound by informal letters, emails and discussions. Parties will only be bound by a formal contract. In this case, s.14 of the RTA 2010 NSW requires a contract to be evidenced in writing. The Short Term Holiday Contract was in fact in writing, was of substantial volume and detail and was evidently excluded from the operation of an RTA 2010 NSW by s.8(1)(h).
The “gifted” member Theresa Simon instead of proper reliance on the written Contract (as Re Glynn; Ex Parte Royle & Ors  WASCA 122 would dictate) preferred to rely on the blatant fabricated lies of her acquaintance Mary Spiers Williams which were unsupported by any evidence or any contract.
Member Simon in her decision selectively reported only those terms and conditions of the Holiday Contract which fitted her biased agenda, and omitted from reporting those which gave the Contract its holiday character. She also failed to report the expressly formulated Strategic Intent of the Contract.
The Member [at 29] of her Decision decided that she is permitted by s.13(2) of the RTA 2010 to consider surrounding circumstances instead of the express terms and conditions of the complete, entire and written contract. Member Simon obviously misconstrued the purpose of that section, which is to ensure Tribunal’s jurisdiction to review Residential Tenancy Contracts which are not in written form or are only partly written. This was not such case, as the Holiday Contract contained 5 parts, was very express, detailed, specific and tailor prepared according to the express wishes of the Applicant who co-operated on its production. Consequently the Member acted ultra vires, in overstepping the boundaries of her powers conferred to her function by the Legislation, by inappropriately misusing the s.13(2) for inappropriate purpose not intended by the Legislation, and by subjectively awarding her self with jurisdiction which was excluded by the operation of s.8(1)(h) of the RTA 2010 (NSW).
s.8(1)(h) of the RTA 2010 (NSW): “an agreement made for the purpose of giving a person the right to occupy residential premises for a period of not more than 3 months for the purpose of a holiday”
Section 8 therefore exempts agreements made for the purpose of giving a person the right to occupy premises for the purpose of a holiday.
Consequently the Member erred in identifying the wrong question ‘whether the purpose of the occupation was for a holiday’ because the real question actually is ‘whether the agreement was made for a holiday purpose’.
That is of-course a huge difference because the Member’s preferred version of the question inappropriately excludes the process of negotiation, and the Contract itself from relevance – in contradiction with the dictum in Re Glynn; Ex Parte Royle & Ors  WASCA 122 – representing a case on which the Member relied.
In addition, the “the right to occupy” applies equally to premises, to tenure (or length) of stay, as well as to purpose of stay.
Consequently, the s.8(1)(h) does not prescribe the length of stay in terms of prohibiting re-booking, or advance booking of premises ahead, it merely states that the agreement gives an Occupant right to stay at any particular time for a period not more than 3 months – in another words – that the agreement or contract at any particular time should not exceed 3 months – therefore clearly hinging on security of the stay.
In the same context, the s.8(1)(h) does not say that a person must not stay more than 3 months, it only says that an agreement period should not exceed 3 months.
Similarly, the s.8(1)(h) does not prescribe the use of a property either – it only refers to occupant’s right to inhabit residential premises for the purpose of a holiday, it does not say that the occupant must use the premises for the purpose of Holiday – it only provides right to do so.
The Holiday Contract provided to the Applicant is clear on its security of tenure aspect in that it does not provide any.
The Contract is also clear on its aspect of tenure itself in that it is at any particular point in time only a 3 months fixed term contract – only providing maximum 3 month long discrete fixed terms – each being defined and counted as new discrete fixed term period (page 1 of the Contract).
In addition, each fixed term period ended with compulsory ‘Premises Inspection Self Report’ – equivalent to Final Inspection Report at the end of stay.
The Contract is also clear on the aspect of its Strategic Intent to provide luxury accommodation to public with high standard of living and comfort as to create an experience of a holiday atmosphere without discrimination and compromise (page 2 of the Contract).
Owner’s Interpretation consistent with Re Glynn; Ex Parte Royle & Ors  WASCA 122
Consequently, on the only relevant, valid and cardinal evidence provided to the Tribunal, the only possible conclusion is that the Applicant’s dominant purpose of entry into the Holiday Contract was for the purpose of holidaying repeatedly in the same location. This falls well within the exclusion of s.8(1)(h) of the RTA 2010 (NSW), and also satisfies the interpretation of the term “holiday purpose” as per Re Glynn; Ex Parte Royle & Ors  WASCA 122.
Tribunal’s Findings & Decision:
Despite Mary explicitly stated that she did not have any evidence of the Owner’s engagement in misleading advertising, deceptive conduct, misrepresentation, unconscionable conduct or fraud the Tribunal still miraculously found, without any evidence, that the ‘Owner/Respondent intended to avoid jurisdiction of the RTA’, – this despite the Tribunal also found that the Owner was not a principal party in negotiation of the Contract, and (quoting the Member): ‘So this is not in the standard agreement. This is stuff that you guys put together’, and despite Mary Spiers Williams admitted in her email 19/12/12 that she took her zealous negotiations to the limit by not allowing the owner to let the premises to someone else.
In this context, the mind-blowing testimony of the member Theresa Simon in one of the hearings (quoting): “Despite what people say I know the law” – will never be forgotten.
The Respondent certainly never said or even hinted anything but noticed that Member Simon took agitated objection every time he or his assistant allowed themselves to cite any legal authority.
This offensive and unsubstantiated Tribunal’s finding is in grave inconsistency with literally all existing evidence as well as with Marshall and Discrimination Commissioner and ors  ACTAAT 258 in which a highly experienced panel of the ACT AAT gave the following directions about admission and treatment of evidence with a potential for great prejudice:
“Where allegations have serious consequences for the person affected, whether in respect of reputation or otherwise, the Tribunal should not make findings unless satisfied according to the appropriate degree of satisfaction that the allegations have been substantiated. Where the ultimate finding the Tribunal is asked to make depends upon finding that a person has committed unlawful act the Tribunal will not act upon generalised statements that unlawful activity has occurred, but will require evidence of the commission of specific unlawful acts to the satisfaction of the Tribunal.”
“In particular a party to Tribunal proceedings is not required to bring evidence to disprove allegations or assertions made concerning the conduct of that person or of any other person. A person who makes allegations or assertions about the conduct of another must produce material to the Tribunal that would, in the absence of any other material, establish to the requisite standard of satisfaction of the Tribunal that the conduct occurred.”
Quoting an extract from the Applicant’s email dated 19/12/12:
“It seems very bitter that the “winning” is really only that you lose a lot, and it seems completely disproportionate to the scale of the dispute. … I realise that you are very angry at me, and blame me in part at least for agreeing to the contract. … I know now that I should never have agreed to the contract and should have just walked away when we weren’t going to get what we needed, which was regular long term lease. … I wish everything could be undone …, and just left you to let the apartment to people who really did only want to use the apartment for a holiday for a couple of months. …”
The Tribunal also decided to completely ignore the Armstrong Jones Management Pty Ltd v Saies – Bond and Associates Pty Ltd (RLD)  NSW ADTAP 47 case which disallows a party from bringing a claim for `misrepresentation or unconscionable conduct or fraud‘ unless some action was taken by the wronged party within reasonable amount of time, because a failure to do so gives rise to an estoppel which prevents such claim.
This was such case − because according to the facts the Applicant after 8 months of reliance on the Holiday Contract and after 8 months of using the apartment as temporary or holiday accommodation, she suddenly “woke up” and only after she was informed by the Respondent on 20/07/12 (as per Respondent’s Folio 151-154) that she will be held liable for the damages caused to the recently renovated luxury holiday apartment she then for the first time requested a change of contract into a standard RTA in her email dated 14/08/12 (in order to minimise, or in this case completely escape her liability for the damages occasioned).
Quoting an excerpt from her email dated 14/08/12:
“[the Owner’s Assistant], …, has been sending correspondence that it is: unnecessary, …, personally insulting, and makes baseless and false assertions about our conduct in the apartment. This has been emotionally distressing and resulted in our tenancy being consistently disrupted by fears of your termination of the contract, that you are endeavouring to fraudulently create a misapprehension in us that you will be entitled to retain our bond moneys, and increasingly fears for our psychological well-being and now personal safety due to the irrational nature of this correspondence. … These inappropriate communication practices and my subsequent distress have lead me to reconsider whether I can continue with the periodic residential tenancy given that it has been an unsettled and unhappy tenancy experience, …”
Upon detailed analysis of the correspondence she referred to (in her quote above), it becomes very clear very fast that it is no more but an absolutely polite, formal and standard business correspondence clearly offering Mary a choice to decide on her preferred mode of resolving the issue of damage and the type of remedy.
The Tribunal did not find or identify a single instance of any harassment what so ever.
Consequently, the analysis of the correspondence, would strongly suggest that the above quote represents misrepresentation.
In the author’s opinion the quote also reveals the real motivation behind Mary’s litigation – that apparently being her (successful) attempt to completely absolve herself from any and all financial responsibility and to completely escape her liability for her negligent damages occasioned to the luxury premises after 8 months of reliance on a Holiday Contract (after its second extension) – by intentionally creating a misleading image that the Owner has somehow acted illegally, despite she admitted in her email 19/12/12 that she exerted pressure on the Owner during her zealous negotiations of the Holiday Contract and did not let him to let the premises to those who really wanted it just for few moths.
The Tribunal decided to run the case in an adversarial court-like mode (paraphrasing the Member): “… this is adversarial process …“. Member Simon also said that she is free to run her hearing as she sees fit. She ordered parties to send their closing submissions only to her and not to each other, she kept the real issues secret, identified the wrong issues and questions, ran the case un-transparently, ignored cardinal evidence, made irrelevant consideration, constantly interrupted the Respondent, actively prevented him from running his case and from being heard, argued and advocated for the Applicant, provided the Applicant with substantive legal advice directly in the Hearing, even offered to look up what the law was for the applicant, provided misleading information to the Respondent, treated the responding party extremely impolitely which resulted in a nervous breakdown of his wife in the proceedings – to which first aid officers needed to be called.
Given the Wednesbury Unreasonableness of the entire process, not surprisingly, the Tribunal found that the Owner was not a principal party in negotiation of the Contract, which effectively means that the Applicant negotiated her Contract solely with her-self and awarded her self with “an agreement made for the purpose of giving a person the right to occupy residential premises for a period of not more than 3 months for the purpose of a holiday” – as per the s.8(1)(h) of the RTA 2010 (NSW) – which would logically remove Tribunal’s jurisdiction to decide the case – which is inconsistent with the Tribunal’s Decision that it has Jurisdiction.
Despite this the Tribunal also decided that the ‘Owner/Respondent intended to avoid jurisdiction of the RTA’, while the Tribunal’s hearing observations were (paraphrasing the Member – as per Hearing 22/02/13):
‘So this is not in the standard agreement. This is stuff that you guys put together’. … ‘They are all relating to “you knew you were signing this contract – you know exactly what you were getting yourself into” I understand that that’s what you are trying to get at. The questions I want to ask are only those pertaining to jurisdiction.’ … ‘but you do ultimately sign this Contract’, ‘and did this happen on 3rd of January?’, ‘but you ultimately signed an agreement that is for three months’.
The Applicant’s intent to sign a Short-Term or Temporary Holiday Accommodation Contract was also expressed in her Hearing evidence dated 22/02/13 when she claimed under oath that (paraphrasing):
‘down at the bottom there was fine print which declared it was a 3 month contracts – holiday apartment contract – which I remember seeing – but thought that it did not apply to us because I did not want a 3 month contract – so I didn’t read it properly and ticked the 12 months contract and at the time explained what I preferred – we might well think about it because we were having these negotiations also about the garage and so on – at that stage – so there were a few things that still needed to be ironed out on the final agreement.’
Attempted Fraud – Credibility
According to the evidence tendered, Mary also misused the Owner’s address and actively occupied his mail box, about 8 months after purportedly returning full Vacant Possession.
The purpose of the use was, among else, also a recent registration of her husband’s business with Google (using the Owner’s address) and her dishonest attempt to claim Centrelink benefits on her husband’s name despite they were both employed, with Mary also on generous APA scholarship and research grant . The proof that the Applicant never needed the Centrelink support is provided in the hyperlinks below:
This issue of attempted fraud was relevant to the issue of Applicant’s credibility as well as to her active use of the Owner’s address including his mail box eight months after the allegedly complete return of vacant possession. It was consequently also relevant to the issue of rent payment. The Member really did not want to hear about it at all (paraphrasing):
Member: “Again – jurisdictional issue“
Respondent: “May I –“
Member: “No no no – you may not! Again – a jurisdictional issue I’ve dealt with.”
Respondent: “It’s not! It’s not – it’s about the rent! And you banned us from providing evidence for the damages! She is misusing our address for illegal activity – trying to get money from Centrelink registered to our address – they have their own address – why don’t they use the Karabar? Why”
Member: “Yeah, but that is not a problem for me!”
Respondent: “I am sorry – my address is being misused“
Member: “no need to address this – the question is – do they provide any prejudice to being considered?”
So, guess who won?
The CTTT Chairperson then denied the Owner’s Application for Re-hearing on the grounds that no substantial injustice was caused to him because he received plenty opportunity to argue his case.
With great respect for the Member’s daily caseload and experience, it is our humble opinion that it is completely impossible to read and review:
- 100 pages long Tribunal Submission replete with detail and references to evidence, and then
- to check for correctness and accuracy of the complaints/arguments made in those 100 pages by referring to the evidence linked to those arguments inclusive of the Tribunal’s Audio Records of the Hearings (which involves review of relevant information in the Tribunal’s Audio Record and/or Transcript representing about 9 hours of speech), and then
- to make proper consideration – that all in the record time of only 3 days.
This is simply beyond human capability which is therefore strongly suggestive that proper review has simply never taken place, and that the Owner’s Application was brushed off by a Template Denial.
Photo Summary of the Ordeal
s.42 (1)(h) of the CTTT Act 2001 (NSW): The person may be guilty of contempt of Tribunal but only if:
“the person publishes, or permits or allows to be published, any evidence given before the Tribunal or any of the contents of a document produced at a hearing that the Tribunal has ordered not to be published.”
No such Tribunal’s Order to protect the Applicant or any evidence has been issued to date. In addition the Applicant stated that she does not mind if information pertaining to the proceedings is published (quoting):
“… To make the situation worse, your names and the property address will also be published. The Tribunal would find no reason to withhold the details, but would find that it’s in the public interest to release that information. It’s the same thinking that the Tenant’s Union … have; they’ve both really encouraged me to take this to hearing no matter what so that they know it will go on the public record. After …, I reflected on the issue of publication and the concern you raised. While I’m not that concerned as I’m already on so many public accounts, I realised that this really will have drastic implications for you …”
This public disclosure is made in good faith and is made under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2010 and is made specifically for the purpose of public advancement of education on the issue of Tribunal Corruption. This is an attempt for accurate reporting of proceedings, evidence and issues relevant to the proceedings which are of high public concern.
This report is also an honest opinion based on “proper material” that is substantially true and published with absolute or qualified privilege, or protected by the public-report defenses.
All attempts were made to ensure that the published information is correct and in compliance with the s.42 (1)(h) of the CTTT Act 2001 (NSW).
The published information primarily represents summary or extracts of Tribunal materials, extracted quotes from party’s Submissions or Hearing Testimonies (sworn on oath in open court and hence available to public) and relevant evidence given before the Tribunal or any of the contents of a document produced at a hearing that the Tribunal has not protected by Order from publishing. The rest represents the honest opinion about the unfairness of the process and honest understanding and interpretation of the law and of the unreasonableness of the process as experienced and perceived.