South Australian Housing Trust v Popczynski; South Australian Housing Trust v Pawelzik

The South Australian Housing Trust (SAHT) appealed to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia against decisions of a Magistrates Court that had found in favour of the respondents, Mr and Mrs Popczynski and Mr Pawelzik, in separate proceedings concerning residential tenancy agreements. The dispute centred on whether the SAHT, as landlord, had breached its obligations under the *Residential Tenancies Act 1995* (SA) by failing to maintain the rented premises in a reasonable state of repair.

The central legal issue before the Full Court was whether the SAHT had a continuing obligation to repair the premises throughout the tenancy, even if the defects were not present at the commencement of the lease and were not caused by the tenants. Specifically, the Court had to determine the scope and nature of the landlord's duty to maintain premises in a "reasonable state of repair" under section 68 of the Act, and whether this duty extended to addressing latent defects or deterioration that occurred during the tenancy.

The Full Court held that the SAHT's obligation under section 68 of the *Residential Tenancies Act 1995* (SA) was a continuing one, requiring the landlord to keep the premises in a reasonable state of repair throughout the tenancy. This duty was not limited to defects existing at the commencement of the lease or those caused by the tenant. The Court reasoned that the statutory obligation imposed a positive duty on the landlord to take reasonable steps to ensure the premises remained in a habitable and safe condition, irrespective of the cause of any deterioration. The Court affirmed that a failure to address defects that arose during the tenancy, even if not initially present or tenant-caused, constituted a breach of the landlord's statutory obligations.

The appeals were dismissed, with the Full Court upholding the Magistrates Court's findings that the SAHT had breached its obligations under the Act.