The owner whose unit went from one to five bedrooms forfeits the bid to avoid returning it to its “original state.”

A landlord who broke the law by converting a one-bedroom Adelaide unit into a five-bedroom apartment has lost a legal bid to avoid returning the flat to its original condition early next week.

Two years ago, an Adelaide court found that Si Ren, from Seaford in Melbourne, converted the 82sq m apartment in the Mansions on Pulteney building without obtaining permission from the strata corporation that manages the building.

But since then, Ms Ren has been fighting a court order forcing her to reverse the renovations and is trying to take the matter all the way to the High Court.

He was found to have put up partition walls inside the unit “to create five separate rooms and proceeded to grant leases or licenses for each of the rooms” without authorisation.

According to previous ads available online, each of the rooms in Ms. Ren’s apartment was rented for between $150 and $165 a week starting in March 2021, instead of the previous $450 for the entire apartment.

The initial court order, dated November 2022, ordered Ms Ren to carry out “any construction work necessary” to restore the unit to its pre-existing condition by April 2023, but Ms Ren appealed against this decision.

That appeal was rejected, but the Court of Appeal nevertheless granted Ms. Ren more time to comply with the court order and extended the deadline to reverse the renewals until October 28.

The Court of Appeal also ordered Ms. Ren to give notice to her tenants in that unit by September 28 to vacate the premises.

But Ms Ren, who has also sought special leave to appeal to the High Court, wanted a stay on the previous court orders, including the upcoming deadline.

Supreme Court Justice David Bleby refused to stay those orders, saying there was “little chance” his application for special leave would succeed.

He said he did not believe Ms Ren’s reasons for special leave met the criteria for a High Court appeal.

“In the present case, this consideration far outweighs any matter which can be said to be neutral or to some extent in favor of the applicant in the stay application.

“The applicant has not shown that the respondent should be excluded from the benefit of his judgments at trial and on appeal because of the application for special leave.”

Unity a “commitment to safety”

Judge Bleby found that “on the balance of convenience,” Ms. Ren’s burden of having to repair the unit immediately “cannot be said to outweigh the burdens on the defendant strata corporation of the applicant not to do so for a few more months.” .

“I accept that should the applicant succeed in her appeal to the High Court, her failure to obtain a stay will be detrimental to her as she will have had to restore the unit to its original configuration in the meantime,” he said. .

Judge Bleby said an affidavit from strata corporation secretary Lynne Kaye Veness described a “compromise of safety standards” in the current five-bedroom configuration.

“There is a risk of further damage to the building as a State asset, and in particular to the roof, and risk to the insurance of the building due to an excessive demand for hot water services due to the excessive occupation of the unit”. he said

He said the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (SACAT) made a decision in June, based on a home improvement notice issued by the Housing Safety Authority.

“Importantly, the SACAT considered that the lack of an electrical certificate of conformity regarding the electrical defects in the bathroom and the kitchen, the lack of adequate ventilation in the kitchen and the fact that a room arranged as a bedroom was below the established minimum . The size of a bedroom meant defects that could prove the premises are unsafe or unsuitable for human habitation,” he said.

It ordered Ms Ren to pay the strata corporation $7,000 for the costs of the stay application.

In a statement to the ABC, Ms Ren said her case “highlights the need for legal clarity”.

“The High Court’s intervention is critical to establishing clear guidelines on what constitutes ‘prescribed work’ and how strata approvals should be carried out,” he said.