A lawyer has been told her handling of matters around her own tenancy are an "abuse of process". Stock photo / 123RF
A lawyer has been told her handling of matters around her own tenancy are an "abuse of process". Stock photo / 123RF
A lawyer has been told that her handling of matters concerning her own tenancy was an abuse of process.
The Tenancy Tribunal has now thrown out Marisha Dorrance's "confused and confusing" application, after the landlord – a community housing provider - sought to end the long-running claim.
The landlord's cross-applicationhas now been withdrawn.
Dorrance filed an application with the tribunal in November 2019 and has since requested most of the numerous adjournments.
A lawyer has been told her handling of matters around her own tenancy are an "abuse of process". Stock photo / 123RF
The tribunal said in its decision in late February that the application was confused and confusing, and that Dorrance had referred to some matters beyond the tribunal's jurisdiction.
"The tribunal has issued several orders with directions in an attempt to get the tenant to clearly specify her claims and the remedies sought - in other words to file a coherent statement of claim to which the landlord might respond," the decision said.
Each time, Dorrance, who has proceedings in other courts and suggested other civil proceedings against the landlord were possible, sought extensions of time and adjournments for various reasons.
In July last year, the tribunal issued a further adjournment order, on top of several previous, because Dorrance wanted to instruct a legal aid provider.
She sought a two-month extension, and the tribunal allowed her three months, noting that it was "erring on the side of caution" and that any further adjournment would unlikely be granted.
The tribunal directed that a statement of claim was to be filed by October 29 and a hearing date was set for December 2, 2021.
However, on October 29 Dorrance applied for another adjournment. The tribunal granted it, but directed that her submissions be filed by January 31 this year.
Dorrance then applied for another extension of time due to what she described as "exceptional circumstances", including claims of privacy breaches by the landlord; having been served with other proceedings, and health issues.
The tribunal had authority to strike out matters on several grounds.
The landlord said it was a not-for-profit organisation and had used "considerable resources" defending the application over more than two years, and that any further extension of time sought by the tenant would cause ongoing prejudice or delay.
The tribunal agreed with the landlord, saying it was a case where it had "bent over backwards" to allow the tenant time to properly plead her case in a way that the landlord could respond to.
"In addition to the landlord facing what is objectively an unreasonable delay, I find that the tenant's actions repeatedly requesting adjournments and extensions of time are an abuse of process," tribunal adjudicator J Greene said.
"My finding would apply even to a lay tenant. This tenant is a qualified lawyer and knows (or should know) the importance of complying with directions given by a tribunal or court."
Dorrance's entire application was thrown out, and the landlord's application was withdrawn rather than dismissed
