The Northern Territory Public Housing tenants’ right to sue their landlord for emotional distress and disappointment due to a failure to make repairs has been raised for the High Court of Australia’s consideration.
Today, Australia’s top court will hear a case from two public housing tenants from Santa Teresa, a small village in Central Australia, southeast of Alice Springs, seeking it to reverse a previous decision that they are not entitled to compensation for the effects the lack of maintenance had on them.
The Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal received 70 claims in 2016 alleging that the chief executive officer of the Northern Territory Department of Housing had neglected to make repairs and provide livable housing.
Enid Young, a claimant who is leading the High Court case, told the tribunal that she had been living without a back door for five years and that snakes had entered the property, making her feel unsafe since she was unable to close the door.
Also, she claimed that wild horses had flattened her fences.
The executors of a second renter who has since passed away are speaking on his behalf.
The chief executive of the Department of Housing was found to have a duty to provide livable accommodation that is “humane and fairly pleasant” in subsequent proceedings before Northern Territory courts.
The tribunal found multiple violations in Ms. Young’s case, but it only gave modest compensation for the missing door because the landlord had put it in place six weeks after being informed.
However, the High Court appeal resulted from a later Supreme Court decision that determined the door was required for security and the landlord’s failure to provide one constituted a violation of contract.
After that, Ms. Young received damages for her disappointment and grief.
The Northern Territory Court of Appeal overturned that decision, concluding that damages for contract breach were not typically given for mental suffering.
Ms. Young’s attorneys claimed in their filings to the Supreme Court that the appeal judges were incorrect.
Nonetheless, the Northern Territory government will inform the High Court that the case’s premise is flawed.
It has questioned Ms. Young’s narrative in its submissions.
Instead, the Tribunal discovered that: “While [Ms. Young] wrote that a snake entered through a crack, it appears that this happened after the back door was fixed.”
The fact that the property’s perimeter fence was largely bent to the ground was “[Ms. Young’s] evidence about the perimeter fence and wild horses.”
The submissions mentioned Ms. Young’s observation that it might have been due to wild horses that were free to wander.
It will come down to whether the law permits compensation for emotional discomfort in such situations in the High Court case.
According to the attorneys representing Ms. Young and the other tenant in the case, there will likely be repercussions for renters all around Australia.
