Pepperill v CEO Housing

Case [2023] NTSC 90

CITATION:Pepperill and Anor v CEO Housing [2023] NTSC 90

PARTIES:PEPPERILL, Joanne

and

STAFFORD, Jamesie

v

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (HOUSING)

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT exercising Territory Jurisdiction

FILE NO:2022-01304-SC  

DELIVERED:  2 October 2023

HEARING DATE:  6 September 2022

JUDGMENT OF:  Barr J

CATCHWORDS:

LANDLORD AND TENANT – Residential tenancies – Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal – Applications under the Residential Tenancies Act 1999 seeking orders against respondent landlord for repairs and compensation – Concentration of uranium in drinking water more than three times safe level identified by the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines – Interpretation of term “habitable” in s 48(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1999 – Applicants alleged premises not “habitable” – Tribunal found no breach of the Act – Water supplied by third party – Water quality not the responsibility of landlord – Held premises would not be habitable without running water – Water supplied with consent of the respondent – Respondent required to ensure that premises were habitable – In the circumstances respondent’s obligations extended to ensuring the safety of drinking water supplied to the applicants’ premises – Leave to appeal granted – appeal allowed

Residential Tenancies Act 1999, s 48(1)

Power and Water Corporation Act 1987, s 14A(1)(a) & (c).

Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2014, s 45, s 46, s 141

Belcher v McIntosh (1839) 174 ER 257; Proudfoot v Hart (1890) 25 QBD 42; Hall v Manchester Corporation (1915) 84 LJ Ch 732; Summers v Salford Corporation [1943] AC 283; Fine v Geier [2003] QSC 73; Gray v Queensland Housing Commission [2004] QSC 276; Slivak v Lurgi (Australia) Pty Ltd (2001) 205 CLR 304; Shrestha v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2018) 264 CLR 151; Young and Conway v Chief Executive Officer (Housing) [2020] 355 FLR 290; Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs (2022) 96 ALJR 497, referred to

Chief Executive Officer (Housing) v Young [2022] NTCA 1, considered

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Applicants:M Albert

Respondent:  T Moses

Solicitors:

Applicants: Australian Lawyers for Remote Aboriginal Rights

Respondent:  Minter Ellison

Judgment category classification:    B

Judgment ID Number:  Bar2312

Number of pages:  25

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN

Pepperill and Anor v CEO Housing [2023] NTSC 90

No. 2022-01304-SC

IN THE MATTER of an application for leave to appeal, pursuant to
s 141(2) Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2014

BETWEEN:

JOANNE PEPPERILL

First Applicant

AND:

JAMESIE STAFFORD

Second Applicant

AND:

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (HOUSING)

Respondent

CORAM:    BARR J

REASONS FOR DECISION

(Delivered 2 October 2023)

  1. The respondent is a body corporate sole with perpetual succession. One of its functions is to provide and to assist in the provision of residential accommodation.[1] In the exercise of its powers and the performance of its functions, it is subject to the directions of the Minister.[2]

  2. The respondent is the landlord of a significant number of residences in the…

Continue reading Pepperill v CEO Housing

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Pepperill v CEO Housing [2023] NTSC 90
Case
[2023] NTSC 90
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Pepperill v CEO Housing involved applicants, Pepperill, seeking orders against their landlord, CEO Housing, under the Residential Tenancies Act 1999. The applicants argued that the premises they rented were not "habitable" due to the presence of uranium in the drinking water, which exceeded the safe level as defined by the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines. The Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the landlord was not responsible for the water quality since it was supplied by a third party. The applicants sought leave to appeal and were successful, arguing that the tribunal had erred in its interpretation of the term "habitable" under the Act.

The primary legal issue before the court was the interpretation of the term "habitable" under section 48(1)(a) of the Act, specifically whether the landlord's obligation to ensure the property was habitable extended to the quality of the drinking water supplied to the property. The applicants contended that the presence of uranium in the drinking water rendered the premises uninhabitable, and the landlord should be held responsible for ensuring the safety of the drinking water. The landlord argued that the water supply was the responsibility of a third party and that the tribunal was correct in finding that the landlord was not liable for the water quality.

The court allowed the appeal, finding that the tribunal had erred in its interpretation of the term "habitable". The court held that the landlord's obligation to ensure the property was habitable extended to the safety of the drinking water supplied to the property. The court found that the landlord was responsible for ensuring the safety of the drinking water, given that the water supply was provided with the landlord's consent. The court held that in the circumstances, the landlord's obligations extended to ensuring the safety of the drinking water supplied to the applicants' premises. The court allowed the appeal on ground 1(a) and proposed to set aside the tribunal's decision on account of the error(s) of law identified in [47]. The court directed the applicants to file and serve a minute of proposed orders consistent with these reasons, and the matter was listed for further argument if there was any dispute between the parties in relation to such orders.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

In the circumstances, I do not consider it necessary to consider ground 2.Conclusion The application for leave to appeal is allowed. The appeal is allowed on ground 1(a). I would propose to set aside the Tribunal’s decision on account of the error(s) of law identified in [47]. I will hear the parties in relation to specific orders, consequential orders and costs. The applicants are to file and serve a minute of proposed orders consistent with these reasons. The matter will be listed for further argument if there is any dispute between the parties in relation to such orders. ---------------------------

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.