Background In 1977, under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, control of Santa Teresa, a former Catholic Church mission, passed into the hands of the Santa Teresa Land Trust. The Trust held the title on behalf of the local Aboriginal community, which was renamed Ltyentye Apurte (Find&Connect). As the community now held the title to the land, they had the responsibility of managing their housing and determining land use. However, on 18 August 2007, the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act 2007 (Cth) commenced. This legislation granted the Commonwealth Government five-year leases over 64 Northern Territory Aboriginal communities, including Santa Teresa, and is part of what is known as the Commonwealth Government's Northern Territory Intervention. The community continued to own the land but was no longer able to manage their housing. This became the responsibility of the Commonwealth Government who delegated this responsibility to the NT Government, who in turn delegated it to the CEO of Housing (see Cavanagh v Chief Executive Officer (Housing) [2018] NTSC 52 [10] -[16]). Details of Judgment Breaches of the RTA Breaches of s 48 of the RTA – not providing safe and habitable housing The Tribunal found that the CEO of Housing breached the requirements of ss 48(1)(a) and (b) of the RTA to provide safe and habitable housing. Under s 48(1)(a), a landlord must ensure a premise is habitable. The Tribunal found that the CEO of Housing was in breach of this provision in two instances: - renting premises which had a major water leak [141]-[147]; and
- renting premises without an air conditioner, in circumstances where an air conditioner was needed [181]-[182].
Under s 48(1) (b) of the RTA, a landlord must ensure that a premise meets all the safety and health requirements. The CEO of Housing breached this provision by renting premises without smoke detectors. Breaches of s 57 of the RTA – failure in the duty to repair the properties Under s 57 of the RTA, a landlord must maintain a premise in a reasonable state of repair. The Tribunal found the CEO of Housing breached this provision in three instances: - failing to provide a back door for a property for over six weeks [164];
- failing to repair a stove for over five months [243]; and
- failing to fix a blocked toilet for over three months [195].
Breaches of s 49 of the RTA – failure to provide and maintain security devices Under s 49 of the RTA, a landlord must provide and maintain security devices to ensure the property is reasonably secure. The Tribunal found that the CEO of Housing had breached this provision in two instances by not providing front door keys and by not providing a handle and lock on a front door [212], [154]. The applicants also claimed that failure to provide a back door was a breach of this provision. Whilst the Tribunal held that failing to provide a back door was a breach of s 57, it held that it was not a breach of s 49. The Tribunal interpreted s 49 narrowly, to refer to the maintenance of locks and similar devices. Without a door, there was no lock/device to maintain [166]. Compensation The Tribunal awarded compensation to the tenants for the breaches of the RTA under s 122. Compensation was awarded by way of repaid rent where it could be demonstrated the applicants suffered a loss. Ms Cavanagh was awarded $1,042.03 and Ms Young was awarded $4,735.80 for the 269 days and 590 days respectively that their houses were not habitable. They were also awarded $2,500 and $4,000 respectively for distress resulting from the physical inconvenience of this breach [284]. As no loss could be shown from the other breaches, only a small amount of damages could be awarded. This ranged between $100-$200 [284]-[288]. Invalid Agreements The Tribunal found that the tenancy agreements between the applicants and the CEO of Housing were invalid [84]. This was because the agreements had either not been signed by the CEO of Housing, or contained clauses that were inconsistent with the RTA [63], [78]. The applicants argued that because the tenancy agreements were invalid, they should not have had to pay rent over this period. The Tribunal found that despite the agreements being invalid, there was a valid tenancy agreement in place during this period. This was because the RTA states that when there is an issue with the terms or format of an agreement, the prescribed tenancy agreement in Schedule 2 of the RTA operates instead [65], [78]. The applicants put forward that the prescribed tenancy agreements were invalid for uncertainty, because of a failure to agree upon a rent amount at the beginning of the tenancy [82]. The Tribunal referred to the original tenancy agreements which, although invalid, demonstrated that the tenants were aware of the rent required in the prescribed tenancy agreements [84]. As the applicants were determined to have been aware of the amount of rent to be paid, the prescribed tenancy agreements were valid, and the tenants could not claim reimbursement of rent [94]. Unconscionable conduct The Tribunal noted that the residents had limited English language skills and were not given explanations of what they were signing, nor were they told about the amount of rent due [14], [28] -[29], [36], [44], [102]. However, the Tribunal did not find it necessary to address this issue in light of how the case was decided. Model Litigant A model litigant is a litigant that adheres to their ongoing obligation to 'act honestly, consistently and fairly when handling claims and litigation brought by or against the Northern Territory' [24]. The standard of this obligation was described as an 'elementary' level of fair play [24]. The Tribunal found that because the CEO of Housing contacted the applicants rather than their lawyers to execute ‘replacement’ tenancy agreements, the CEO fell below the honest and fair handling of litigation expected of a model litigant [24]. | 
