Henderson v South Australian Housing Trust

The appeal concerned a dispute between a tenant, Ms Henderson, and the South Australian Housing Trust (SAHT) regarding a residential tenancy agreement. Ms Henderson, who suffers from various psychological conditions including a hoarding disorder, had been a tenant of SAHT since 2007. The core of the dispute revolved around alleged breaches of her tenancy agreement, specifically clauses requiring her to keep the premises clean and in good tenantable condition, and to give vacant possession upon termination. The matter came before the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (SACAT) and subsequently the Court of Appeal.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether leave to appeal should be granted, and if so, whether the President of SACAT had erred in upholding the Senior Member's decision that Ms Henderson had breached clause 6(c) of her tenancy agreement. Specifically, the court had to determine if the accumulation of possessions constituted a breach of the requirement to maintain the premises in good tenantable condition and if this breach was sufficiently serious to justify the termination of the tenancy and an order for vacant possession under section 87 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1995 (SA).

The Court of Appeal reasoned that Ms Henderson's accumulation of possessions, which created an increased risk of fire, constituted a breach of clause 6(c) of the agreement. The court found that this breach, when considered cumulatively with the associated fire risk and the significant period over which it persisted, was sufficiently serious to justify termination of the tenancy under section 87(1)(b) of the Act. The court also concluded that the Senior Member and the President had properly exercised their discretion in ordering termination and vacant possession, having taken into account all relevant considerations, including Ms Henderson's personal circumstances and SAHT's role as a public housing provider.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal but ultimately dismissed the appeal, upholding the President's decision. The court found no merit in the challenges to the President's conclusions regarding the breach of clause 6(c) and the seriousness of that breach justifying termination.