Two cases heard in the SAT in 2015 highlighted the need for any
notice issued under the Residential Parks (Long Stay Tenants)
Act 2006 (the Act) to be drafted in
accordance with the Act and to contain accurate information.
The first case Broadview Nominees Pty Ltd and Whalley
 WASAT 75 considered an application for termination of a long
stay agreement for breach of the agreement. There was no detailed
written agreement in place and the tenant was only deemed a long
stay tenant as he had resided for greater than ninety days in the
Two problems arose for the Operator. The first was the lack of a
written agreement which meant it was difficult to identify what the
tenant was in breach of (a provision which was in the Park's
standard agreement for relocation within the Park was relied on for
the default). The second was the lapse in time between
issuing a notice to remedy the breach and the issue of the
termination notice was only twelve days.
The operator lost on both issues. The Tribunal found that the
operator failed to give the tenant the default notice at least
fourteen days prior to the date specified in the default notice as
the date on or before which the breach must be remedied. This error
meant both the default notice and the termination notice did not
comply with the Act and could not support an application to
The Tribunal also found in any event that the tenant did not
breach the long stay agreement as the tenant had not agreed to the
term relied on in the notice. The Tribunal also considered the
s68(4)(a) requirement that the breach has to be in all the
circumstances such as to justify terminating the agreement, and
found that in this particular case it would not have considered a
refusal to move to another site to be sufficient breach to justify
terminating the long-stay agreement in any event.
The second case Rockingham Holiday Village and
Cracknell  WASAT 32 involved an even simpler error, a
failure to specify the correct amount of rent in arrears at the
date of the default notice. The terms of the long stay agreement
were not in dispute, nor was there a dispute that there was rent in
arrears when the notice was issued. The issue to be decided
was how much was owed. It was conceded that the incorrect
amount of rent had been claimed in the default notice. The
error meant that both the default notice and the termination notice
were defective and could not be relied on to terminate or obtain
The critical problem is that SAT only has power under s68 to
order termination of an agreement and vacant possession if pursuant
to s68(1)(a) a park operator has given a notice of termination to a
long-stay tenant. If the termination notice is
defective in any material way then SAT has no power.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
Kott Gunning is a proud member of
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Solicitors should think carefully before disclosing sensitive information to experts in a letter of instruction.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).