A provider obtained personal orders under the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988 after a consumer's de facto partner refused entry into the property to provide services. To give effect to the orders, and to prevent inappropriate intervention from the de facto partner, the Family Court modified a tenancy agreement making the consumer a joint tenant of the home. On appeal, the High Court confirmed that an order modifying a tenancy agreement is within the Family Court's jurisdiction under the Act, provided that it is "necessary or expedient to give effect, or better effect, to the personal order"; the landlord is served and afforded the opportunity to be heard; and the tenancy order is the least restrictive available (for the consumer and others affected by the order). While the High Court noted that, in many cases, an order in the nature of an injunction against a sole tenant with whom a protected person is living would be enough to ensure the implementation of personal orders, in the circumstances of this case, the tenancy order was justified: "It put beyond doubt the authority of [the protected person's] parents and CCS to deliver services to him at the property". JMG v CCS Disability Action (HC Wellington CIV 2011-485-834, 28 October 2011, Miller J).
Register Now As you are not an existing subscriber please register for your free daily legal newsfeed service.Register
If you have any questions about the service please contact firstname.lastname@example.org or call Lexology Customer Services on +44 20 7234 0606.
Court modifies tenancy agreement to ensure the provision of health services
- Buddle Findlay
- New Zealand
- December 13 2011
If you are interested in submitting an article to Lexology, please contact Andrew Teague at email@example.com.
Group Manager, Legal and Business Services
Australian Grand Prix Corporation