Legal Research
Cases
Chief Executive Officer (Housing) v Young

Chief Executive Officer (Housing) v Young

Link copied

Case Copied 4 February 2022 62 min read

Contents

On this page

CITATION:Chief Executive Officer (Housing) v Young & Anor [2022] NTCA 1

PARTIES:CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (HOUSING)

v

YOUNG, Enid
and
CAVANAGH, Petria in her capacity as Administrator of the Estate of Robert Conway (Deceased)

TITLE OF COURT:  NORTHERN TERRITORY COURT OF APPEAL
JURISDICTION:  APPEAL from SUPREME COURT exercising Northern Territory jurisdiction
FILE NO:No. AP 9 of 2020 (22031505)
DELIVERED:  4 February 2022
HEARING DATE:  23 February 2021
JUDGMENT OF:  Grant CJ, Southwood and Barr JJ
CATCHWORDS:

LEASES AND TENANCIES – Residential tenancies — Jurisdiction of Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal
Whether Supreme Court erred in remitting claims for unconscionable dealings and repayment of rent to Tribunal for reconsideration – Tribunal has no jurisdiction or power to make such a determination – Tribunal’s jurisdiction to award compensation predicated upon existence of a valid tenancy agreement – Appeal allowed.
Residential Tenancies Act 1999 (NT), s 122
Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Edensor Nominees Pty Ltd (2001) 204 CLR 559, Cavanagh v Chief Executive Officer (Housing) (2018) 345 FLR 55, Herald & Weekly Times Ltd v Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (2006) 24 VAR 174, Household Financial Services Ltd v Commercial Tribunal of New South Wales (1995) 36 NSWLR 220, Osland v Secretary to the Department of Justice [2010] HCA 24; (2010) 241 CLR 320, Smith v Baker (1873) 8 CP 350, State of New South Wales v Kable (2013) 252 CLR 118, Thompson v Palmer (1933) 49 CLR 507, Thorne v Kennedy (2017) 263 CLR 85, Walton v McBride (1995) 36 NSWLR 440, referred to.
LEASES AND TENANCIES – Residential tenancies — Construction
Whether Supreme Court erred in construing the term ‘habitable’ in s 48(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act – Determination of habitability not restricted to matters of health and safety – Reasonable comfort of premises may be a test of habitability – Appeal dismissed.
Residential Tenancies Act 1999 (NT), s 48
Belcher v McIntosh (1839) 174 ER 257, Bond v Weeks[1999] 1 Qd R 134, De Soleil v Palhide Pty Ltd [2010] NSWCTTT 464, Fine v Geier (2003] QSC 73, Finn v Finato [2004] NSWCTTT 179, Gray v Queensland Housing Commission [2004] QSC 276, Hall v Manchester Corporation (1915) 84 LJ Ch 732, Hampel & Hampel v South Australian Housing Trust [2007] SADC 64, Lewin v Zhou [2018] NSWCATCD 54, Morgan v Liverpool Corporation [1927] 2 KB 131, Proudfoot v Hart (1890) 25 QBD 42, Summers v Salford Corporation [1943] AC 283, referred to.
Anforth, Christensen & Taylor, Residential Tenancies Law and Practice New South Wales, 5^th ed, The Federation Press 2011, [2.52.2].
Woodfall, Landlord & Tenant, 28th ed, [1-1477].
LEASES AND TENANCIES – Residential tenancies — Power to award damages for distress and disappointment
Whether Supreme Court erred in finding damages for distress and disappointment were recoverable under the second limb of the principle in Baltic Shipping – No finding that damages for distress and disappointment…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Chief Executive Officer (Housing) v Young and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] NTCA 1
Decision Date: 4 February 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Chief Executive Officer (Housing) of the Northern Territory brought an appeal against the decision of the Supreme Court, which had remitted claims made by Ms. Young to the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) for reconsideration. Ms. Young alleged unconscionable conduct in the circumstances of her residential tenancy agreement and sought repayment of rent. The Tribunal had previously dismissed her claims for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court had found that the Tribunal erred in its jurisdictional determination and remitted the claims back to the Tribunal for reconsideration.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Supreme Court was correct in remitting the claims to the Tribunal for reconsideration and whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction or power to make a determination regarding unconscionable conduct and repayment of rent. The court needed to determine whether the Tribunal's jurisdiction to award compensation was dependent upon the existence of a valid tenancy agreement and whether the claims were outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The court found that the Supreme Court had erred in remitting the claims to the Tribunal for reconsideration. The court held that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction or power to make a determination in relation to unconscionable conduct and repayment of rent. The Tribunal's jurisdiction to award compensation was predicated upon the existence of a valid tenancy agreement, and the claims made by Ms. Young were outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The appeal was allowed, and the decision of the Supreme Court was quashed.

The court's decision highlights the importance of correctly determining the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in residential tenancy disputes. The court emphasised that the Tribunal's jurisdiction to award compensation was dependent upon the existence of a valid tenancy agreement, and any claims outside of this jurisdiction should not be remitted to the Tribunal for reconsideration. This decision serves as a reminder to practitioners to carefully consider the jurisdiction of the Tribunal before bringing claims before it.

Orders