Young & Anor v Chief Executive Officer (Housing)

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the Youngs against a decision of the Chief Executive Officer (Housing) concerning the termination of their public housing tenancy. The dispute centred on whether the Youngs had breached the terms of their tenancy agreement by allowing a person not ordinarily residing at the premises to reside there without the consent of the Chief Executive Officer. The Youngs contended that the individual in question was not "residing" at the premises but was merely visiting.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was the interpretation of the term "residing" within the context of the public housing tenancy agreement and the relevant legislation. Specifically, the Court had to determine whether the factual circumstances of the individual's presence at the property constituted "residing" in a manner that would breach the tenancy agreement, thereby justifying its termination.

The High Court analysed the ordinary meaning of "residing" and concluded that it implies a degree of permanence or habitual presence, rather than a transient or temporary stay. The Court considered the evidence presented regarding the individual's use of the premises, including the storage of personal belongings and the frequency of their presence. Ultimately, the Court found that the evidence did not establish that the individual was "residing" at the premises in a manner that constituted a breach of the tenancy agreement. The appeal was allowed.