Background
Susan Rose Padley, a self-represented tenant of the South Australian Housing Trust (SAHT), sought an urgent stay of a SACAT President’s 25 June 2026 order affirming termination of her tenancy and requiring vacant possession. Her stay application was out of time and would have required an extension.
The tenancy proceedings concerned the persistently poor condition of the property, including inaccessible rooms, obstructed hallways, accumulated debris, foul odours and vermin infestation. SACAT had given Ms Padley further opportunities to provide a clean-up plan, permit inspections and improve the premises. Although there had been limited improvements, the condition remained unsatisfactory. Ms Padley submitted that eviction would probably leave her homeless.
At the hearing, Ms Padley also sought an adjournment to pursue an apprehended-bias allegation based on a claim that an SAHT representative had been in a room with the SACAT President before the 25 June hearing. The allegation had not previously been raised and was not supported by evidence.
The Court’s Holding
Stanley JA dismissed the stay application and refused leave to appeal. Ms Padley had not shown a relevant error in the President’s decision, nor demonstrated a proper basis for a stay, including a bona fide appeal with some prospect of success. The Court held that the material before SACAT supported its conclusion that termination was the correct and preferable decision.
The proposed apprehended-bias ground did not justify an adjournment or stay. A mere possibility that the President and SAHT officer may have discussed the matter, without evidence of what occurred, could at most create vague unease; it did not establish an arguable case that a fair-minded lay observer would reasonably apprehend a lack of impartiality.
Although it affirmed SACAT’s orders, the Court varied the operative termination date from midday on 20 August 2026 to midday on 1 September 2026, allowing Ms Padley additional time to remove her possessions and seek alternative accommodation. Because the stay failed on its merits, it was unnecessary to decide whether to extend time for the application.
Key Takeaways
- A stay pending a proposed appeal requires a demonstrated basis for intervention, including an appeal with at least some prospect of success.
- An apprehended-bias allegation requires a firm factual foundation; unsupported speculation and general unease are insufficient.
- Serious and continuing failure to keep public-housing premises habitable may justify tenancy termination despite hardship from eviction.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the high practical threshold for obtaining urgent appellate relief from a SACAT tenancy termination order. Personal hardship, including likely homelessness, did not overcome the absence of an identified appealable error and the long-running failure to remedy serious property-condition issues.
It also confirms that courts will distinguish a concrete, evidenced basis for apprehended bias from last-minute speculation about pre-hearing contact.