Pepperill v CEO Housing

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.