Young v Chief Executive Officer (Housing) [2023] HCA 31

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KIEFEL CJ,

GAGELER, GORDON, EDELMAN AND GLEESON JJ

WAYNE MATTHEW YOUNG AS ADMINISTRATOR

OF THE ESTATE OF KWEMENTYAYE

YOUNG & ANOR APPELLANTS

AND

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (HOUSING) RESPONDENT

Young v Chief Executive Officer (Housing)

[2023] HCA 31

Date of Hearing: 16 March 2023

Date of Judgment: 1 November 2023

D5/2022

ORDER

1. Appeal allowed.

2. Set aside order 4 of the orders made by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory on 4 February 2022.

3. The respondent pay the appellants' costs of the first and second grounds of the appeal to this Court.

On appeal from the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory

Representation

M L L Albert for the appellants (instructed by Australian Lawyers for Remote Aboriginal Rights)

N Christrup SC, Solicitor-General for the Northern Territory, with H H Baddeley for the respondent (instructed by MinterEllison)

Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

CATCHWORDS

Young v Chief Executive Officer (Housing)

Residential tenancies – Where s 122(1) of Residential Tenancies Act 1999 (NT) ("Act") relevantly provided Civil and Administrative Tribunal of the Northern Territory ("Tribunal") may order compensation for loss or damage suffered by landlord or tenant under tenancy agreement be paid by other party because other party failed to comply with agreement – Where tenancy agreement between parties prescribed by Act – Where term of tenancy agreement imposed by s 49(1) of Act required landlord to take reasonable steps to provide and maintain locks and other security devices necessary to ensure premises and ancillary property were reasonably secure – Where premises had no back door for 68 months – Whether Tribunal empowered by s 122(1) to order landlord compensate tenant for loss or damage by way of distress and disappointment due to insecurity tenant felt because of landlord's breach of tenancy agreement – Whether s 122 incorporated common law principles of remoteness – Whether common law principles of remoteness precluded tenant from recovering compensation for distress and disappointment unless consequent upon physical inconvenience.