Posts tagged Housing
UK High Court rules amendments to Public Order Act unlawful and upholds protest rights

National Council for Civil Liberties v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWHC 1181

In an important decision on protest rights in England, the High Court of Justice has found that amendments made by the Secretary of State to the Public Order Act 1986 (‘POA Act’) were unlawful. The amended regulations had the effect of lowering the threshold of police intervention in protests. In its decision, the Court considered four grounds of challenges and accepted two of them. The decision is useful in understanding what is considered to be unlawful and the limitations in circumventing legislative processes.

Read More
Landmark New Zealand decision on tort liability for greenhouse gas emissions

Smith v Fonterra [2024] NZSC 5

The New Zealand Supreme Court has delivered a landmark decision on a case brought by Māori elder, Mike Smith, against seven of New Zealand's largest greenhouse gas emitters.

Prior to this decision, the common law had entrenched the prevailing orthodoxy that tort claims could not be used to challenge or address climate change and that the regulation of greenhouse gas emitters was best left to the other branches of government through statutory regulation.
This case is significant as it marks one of the first decisions where a court has recognised that tort law can be used to challenge the greenhouse gas emissions of a private entity.

Read More
Tash KhanHousing
The Federal Court awards increased damages on appeal for employee discriminated against due to his age.

Mr Gutierrez v MUR Shipping Australia Pty Limited [2023] FCA 399 

Alex Gutierrez successfully brought proceedings against MUR Shipping (‘MUR’) for breaches of the Age Discrimination Act 2004 (Cth). On 4 May 2023, the Australian Federal Court allowed an appeal challenging the damages awarded to Mr Gutierrez by the Federal Circuit and Family Court. The Court found in favour of Mr Gutierrez, substantially increasing his general damages and awarding him damages for economic loss. 

Read More
Tash KhanHousing
Court finds that complainant was subject to systemic discrimination on the basis of her age and sex, acknowledging the role of unconscious bias.

Austin Health v Tsikos [2023] VSCA 82

On 17 April 2023, the Victorian Court of Appeal overruled the decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (‘VCAT’) in favour of the respondent, Ms Tsikos, and dismissed the appeal by Austin Health. Although the Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, none of the grounds were successful, instead agreeing with the single instance judgment and finding that VCAT had erred in its original decision.

Read More
Tash KhanHousing
US Supreme Court Unanimously Rules in Favour of Whistleblower Protection in Murray v UBS Securities LLC: Landmark Decision Sets Precedent for Contributing Factor Test

Murray v UBS Securities LLC, 601 US 22 (2024)

This matter relates to a decision pursuant to §1514A(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 which allows whistleblower employees to seek relief against an employer that makes an adverse personnel decision against the employee because of their whistleblowing activity.

The United States Supreme Court unanimously held that a whistleblower who invokes §1514A must prove that their protected activity was a contributing factor in the employer’s unfavourable personnel action but need not prove that their employer acted with “retaliatory intent”.

Read More
Tash KhanHousing
Supreme Court strikes down parts of new NSW anti-protest laws for impermissibly burdening the Commonwealth Constitution’s implied freedom of political communication

Kvelde v State of New South Wales [2023] NSWSC 1560

Two environmental activists who challenged New South Wales’ recently reformed anti-protest laws have been in-part successful. The Supreme Court declared parts of section 214A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (Crimes Act) invalid for impermissibly burdening the Commonwealth Constitution’s implied freedom of political communication.

Read More
Tash KhanHousing
Compensation awarded to tenant who experienced psychological inconvenience caused by premises’ lack of security

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

In the case of Young v Chief Executive Officer (Housing) [2023] HCA 31, the High Court allowed an appeal from the Court of Appeal of the Northern Territory Supreme Court, which concerned the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of the Northern Territory’s power under section 122 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1999 (NT) (Act).

Read More
Tash KhanHousing
NT Civil and Administrative Tribunal awards compensation to Aboriginal tenants for uninhabitable housing

Various Applicants from Santa Teresa v Chief Executive Officer (Housing) [2019] NTCAT 7

The Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) has awarded compensation to Aboriginal tenants in the remote community of Santa Teresa over the Northern Territory government's failure to provide habitable public housing. Residents of 70 households in Santa Teresa brought the action against the Northern Territory government. In this decision, the first four of these cases proceeded to hearing, and the Tribunal awarded compensation in each case.

Read More
NT Supreme Court case establishes right to humane housing for residents of Santa Teresa community

Young & Conway v Chief Executive Officer, Housing [2020] NTSC 59

The Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) initially examined the cases of Jasmine Cavanagh, Enid Young, Robert Conway and Clayton Smith in Various Applications from Santa Teresa v Chief Executive Officer (Housing) [2019] NTCAT 7. The case involved Aboriginal residents of the remote community of Ltyentye Apurte (also known as Santa Teresa) challenging the poor housing conditions they were subjected to. A summary of that case is available here.

Two of the people involved in that case – Enid Young and Robert Conway (the appellants) – appealed that decision to the Northern Territory Supreme Court. The respondent was the Chief Executive Officer (Housing), a body corporate created under the Housing Act 1982 (NT) for the purpose of entering into public housing tenancy agreements.

The Northern Territory Supreme Court ruled in favour of Ms Young and the late Mr Conway on two grounds in their appeal and established a precedent that remote community tenants must be provided with housing that meets contemporary standards of ‘humaneness, suitability and reasonable comfort’.

Read More
ACT Aboriginal Community Council not bound by ACT Human Rights Act

Stewart & Ors v Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council & Ors [2014] ACTSC 334 (18 December 2014)

The Supreme Court of the ACT has found that the Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council (WBACC) did not meet the definition of a public authority pursuant to s 40 of the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) (HRA) and therefore it did not need to take into account human rights considerations in its decision to evict the plaintiffs.

Read More
Supreme Court of Victoria finds Director of Housing failed to consider human rights when deciding to evict mother and son

Burgess & Anor v Director of Housing & Anor [2014] VSC 648 (17 December 2014)

Macaulay J held that in making the decision to apply for a warrant of possession:

  1. The Director of Housing was obliged by law to consider the facts surrounding Ms Burgess’s health and the significance of maintaining the rented premises to her health and wellbeing.  The Director’s failure to do this constituted a jurisdictional error.  
  2. The Director was obliged by law to consider the human rights of Ms Burgess and her son identified in s 17 of the Charter.  Failure to take these rights into account made the Director’s decision unlawful under s 38 of the Charter [243]-[244].

His Honour made a declaration that the decision to apply for the warrant was and is of no legal force or effect, and was unlawful by reason of s 39(1) of the Charter [248]. He invited further submissions as to any further orders that should follow from his findings. 

Read More
VCAT has jurisdiction to consider claims of Charter breaches

Goode v Common Equity Housing [2014] VSC 585 (21 November 2014)

The Supreme Court has confirmed that a person seeking redress for a breach of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) is able to obtain relief or remedy based on Charter unlawfulness, even where their non-Charter claim is unsuccessful or not determined.

Read More
UK High Court upholds Council's decision to close aged-care home

Karia, R (on the application of) v Leicester City Council [2014] EWHC 3105 (Admin) (30 September 2014)

The UK High Court of Justice has dismissed an application seeking judicial review of a decision made by Leicester City Council to close a Council run aged care home. In reaching this decision, Sir Stephen Silber (sitting as a High Court Judge) confirmed that when determining an alleged infringement of a Convention right the enquiry must be whether rights have been violated rather than if they will or may be violated. His Honour also confirmed that the Public Sector Equality Duty (‘PSED’), contained in the Equality Act 2010 (UK) (‘EA’), 'is not a back door by which challenges to the factual merits of the decision may be made'.

Read More
Right not to have home or privacy unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with is not part of tribunal jurisdiction in eviction proceedings

Commissioner for Social Housing in the ACT & Massey (Residential Tenancies) [2013] ACAT 41 (4 June 2013)

The ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) has held that, when determining an application for termination of a public housing tenancy, ACAT’s jurisdiction to consider the human rights compliance of the public landlord is limited to ACAT’s exercise of discretion under the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (ACT) (RT Act).

Read More
Protection from arbitrary eviction for Roma community in Bulgaria

Naidenova et al v Bulgaria, UN Doc CCPR/C/106/D/2073/2011 (27 November 2012) 

A Roma community that had lived for over 70 years in an informal settlement on municipal land in Bulgaria was issued with an eviction order on the basis that the buildings were constructed without the proper permits on municipal property. The UN Human Rights Committee considered that, in light of all the circumstances, the execution of the eviction order would violate the right of the Roma community to not be arbitrarily evicted from their homes under article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights unless satisfactory replacement housing was made available to them beforehand.

Read More
Protection from arbitrary eviction for 700 families removed from council buildings

Schubart Park Residents’ Association and Others v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and Another [2012] ZACC 26 (9 October 2012)

The protection against arbitrary eviction under section 26(3) of the South African Constitution provides that a person cannot be evicted from their home without an order of court made after considering all the relevant circumstances. In a unanimous judgment, the Constitutional Court held that the High Court’s order dismissing an application by residents for immediate re-occupation of their homes after their emergency removal was not a justified order for the purposes of section 26(3). The Constitutional Court set aside the High Court’s orders and ordered that the residents were entitled to occupation of their homes as soon as reasonably possible.

Read More
MichelleBennettHousing
European Court rules on the importance of proportionality and personal circumstances in eviction cases

Buckland v United Kingdom [2012] ECHR 1710 (18 September 2012)

The European Court of Human Rights has held that a UK Court of Appeal decision to uphold a possession order against an applicant constituted an unjustified breach of the applicant’s right to respect for her home in violation of article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights which concerns the right to respect for private and family life. The European Court awarded damages and costs to the applicant, ordering the UK Government to reimburse the applicant if a costs order made against her in the UK Court of Appeal is enforced.

Read More
MichelleBennettHousing
VCAT considers the Charter in ordering the creation of a tenancy agreement

DS v Aboriginal Housing Victoria (Unreported, Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Residential Tenancies List, Member Warren, 3 July 2012) 

In a recent decision, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal considered the Charter rights of an applicant for the creation of a tenancy agreement. The Tribunal found that the application engaged the applicant’s right under sections 13 and 17 of the Victorian Charter, and ultimately ordered the respondent landlord (a social housing provider) to enter a tenancy agreement with the applicant.

Read More
European Court considers environmental safety risks and the right to respect for family life and the home

Hardy and Maile v United Kingdom [2012] ECHR 261 (14 February 2012)

The applicants challenged planning permits granted for the operation of liquefied natural gas (“LNG”) terminals in the UK, alleging that the marine risk of a possible collision in the harbour leading to the escape of LNG had not been properly assessed. The European Court of Human Rights found that there was a “coherent and comprehensive legislative and regulatory framework governing the activities in question” and that “extensive reports and studies” had been carried out in relation to the terminals. This was sufficient to fulfil the UK’s obligation to secure the applicants’ right to respect for their private lives and homes under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

Read More
Obligation to consider alternatives to eviction into homelessness

Occupiers of Portion R25 of the Farm Mooiplaats 355 JR v Golden Thread Limited and Others (CCT 25/11) [2011] ZACC 35 (7 December 2011)

In this case, if evicted, approximately 170 families would be made homeless. The South African Constitutional Court unanimously held that, before making eviction orders, the High Court should have considered whether the local authority – the City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality – was able to provide alternative land or accommodation to the occupiers.

Read More
City has constitutional obligation to provide emergency accommodation to vulnerable persons evicted by private landlord

City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality v Blue Moonlight Properties 39 (Pty) Ltd and Another (Lawyers for Human Rights as Amicus Curiae) Case No: CCT 37/11 [2011] ZACC 33 (1 December 2011)

The South African Constitutional Court has held that the City of Johannesburg had a constitutional obligation to provide emergency accommodation to vulnerable persons evicted by a private landlord.

Read More
MichelleBennettHousing
Economic and social rights are fundamental, justiciable and enforceable

Osman v Minister of State for Provincial Administration & Internal Security and Ors eKLR [2011] (16 November 2011)

The High Court of Kenya has held that the forced eviction of 1,122 people was a violation of the right to adequate housing enshrined in the Kenyan Constitution and a number of other rights, and made injunctions compelling the government to return the evictees to their land and to reconstruct reasonable housing for the community.

Read More
United Kingdom justified in differentiating between social housing applicants based on conditional immigration status

Bah v United Kingdom [2011] ECHR 1448 (27 September 2011) 

The European Court of Human Rights has held that a person's immigration status is a relevant ground of discrimination under Article 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights. However, as a person's immigration status involves an element of choice, the ECHR held that the justification needed for differential treatment on this basis need not be as weighty as where differential treatment is based on an inherent characteristic such as sex or nationality.

Read More
VCAT did not have human rights jurisdiction in public housing matter: Court of Appeal strikes "collateral" blow to Victorian Charter

Director of Housing v Sudi [2011] VSCA 266 (6 September 2011)

The Victorian Court of Appeal has decided that VCAT, in an application for a possession order under the Residential Tenancies Act 1997, did not have power to consider whether, by making the application for the possession order, the Director of Housing had complied with s 38(1) of the Charter. Section 38(1) states it is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way that is incompatible with, or fail to give proper consideration to, a relevant human right.

Read More
Does the State have a positive obligation to provide housing?

TG, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Lambeth [2011] EWCA Civ 526 (6 May 2011) 

The UK Court of Appeal has considered whether a failure to provide housing and other supports to a vulnerable young person breaches their positive obligation to respect the right to a private life. The Court has signposted that ordinarily only failures that amount to ‘inhuman and degrading treatment’ will breach the UK’s positive obligation.

Read More
Courts Should Consider the Proportionality of Evictions from Public Housing – The Sequel to Pinnock

Hounslow London Borough Council v Powell; Leeds City Council v Hall; Birmingham City Council v Frisby [2011] UKSC 8 (23 February 2011)

In Manchester City Council v Pinnock [2010] UKSC 45 (Pinnock) the UK Supreme Court held that a person at risk of eviction from their home by a local authority should be able to question the proportionality of eviction (although there is no right under domestic law to remain in the property); and an independent tribunal should be able to assess proportionality with reference to article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Convention).

Read More
MichelleBennettHousing
Evictions and Human Rights in VCAT

Director of Housing v KJ (Residential Tenancies) [2010] VCAT 2026 (16 December 2010)

A recent VCAT decision found that the Director of Housing (‘Director’) acted in accordance with its duties as a public authority pursuant to s 38(1) of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) in serving the respondent with a Notice to Vacate (‘NTV’) and in making an application for possession.  Member Dea assessed the scope of the rights to privacy and to the protection of families and children and she concluded that neither of these rights had been engaged.  She held that even if such rights had been engaged, the Director had given proper consideration to, and had acted compatibly with, them in seeking to evict the respondent.  The application for possession was upheld.

Read More
MichelleBennettHousing
European Court Considers Rights to Privacy and the Home and Procedural Safeguards against Eviction

Kay & Ors v United Kingdom [2010] ECHR 1322 (21 September 2010)

This decision concerned the right to respect for home under art 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights decided that the decision of the UK County Court to strike out the applicants’ art 8 defences meant that ‘procedural safeguards’ for the assessment of proportionality of the interference with the right were not observed.  Accordingly, it was held that there had been a violation of art 8 of the Convention.

Read More
Tribunal has Jurisdiction to Determine whether Public Authority has Acted Compatibly with Human Rights

Director of Housing v TK [2010] VCAT Application 2010/11921 (Unreported, 22 July 2010)

VCAT Deputy President Lambrick has held that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine whether an application made pursuant to ss 250 and 330(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act has been made in breach of the Charter.  This affirms the decision of Bell J in Director of Housing v Sudi [2010] VCAT 328.

Read More
What does Proper Consideration of Human Rights Entail?

Director of Housing v Turcan [2010] VCAT Ref No R201011922 (Unpublished, 4 May 2010)

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal has considered the meaning of ‘arbitrary’ and ‘unlawful’ in the context of s 13(a) of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, as well as the relevance of a public authority’s policy to an assessment of proportionality under s 7(2).  Additionally, the Tribunal has held that in determining an application for possession in its Residential Tenancies List, the decision of Bell J in Director of Housing v Sudi [2010] VCAT 328 should be followed to the extent that it is relevant.

Read More
Obligation of Public Authorities to Provide Accommodation and Support to Destitute Family

Birmingham City Council v Clue [2010] EWCA Civ 460 (29 April 2010)

In this case, the England and Wales Court of Appeal held that the Birmingham City Council’s refusal to provide financial assistance and accommodation to a family while their immigration application was pending resulted in a breach of the family’s right to respect for family and private life under art 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

Read More
MichelleBennettHousing
Eviction from Public Housing without Adequate Justification a Breach of Human Rights

  Director of Housing v Sudi [2010] VCAT 328 (31 March 2010)

Justice Bell, sitting as President of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, has held that the Director of Housing acted unlawfully under s 38(1) of the Charter in seeking, without adequate justification, to evict a refugee family from social housing in breach of their right to family and the home under s 13(a).  His Honour further held that this unlawfulness invalidated the Director’s application for a possession order under s 344 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

Read More
Possession Orders and the Right to Privacy and the Home

Salford City Council v Mullen [2010] EWCA Civ 336 (30 March 2010)

In this case, the England and Wales Court of Appeal considered the impact of House of Lords decisions on the rights of tenants occupying premises under ‘introductory’ or ‘homeless’ accommodation legislation.  In considering the ability of tenants to raise arguments under art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Court of Appeal clarified the scope of the ‘gateway b’ defence.  

Read More
Does the Creation of a Tenancy or the Making of a Possession Order Engage Human Rights?

Heywood v Director of Housing [2010] R2009/36396 (4 January 2010)

In this case, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal considered the application of provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (Vic) which provide for the creation of a tenancy and provisions which permit a landlord to apply for possession order where premises have been occupied without consent.  The VCAT Member held that the relevant provisions do not engage the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) as these provisions ‘enhance’ rights rather than limit them.

Read More
Homelessness and the Right to Life, Liberty and Security

Victoria (City) v Adams, 2009 BCCA 563 (9 December 2009)

The British Columbia Court of Appeal has held that a city bylaw which prohibited homeless people from erecting any form of temporary shelter at night in a public park, in circumstances where the number of homeless people exceeded the number of shelter beds available, is a violation of the right to life, liberty and security of the person.

Read More
MichelleBennettHousing
The Prohibition of Ill-Treatment and Prevention of Destitution in a Third State

EW, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWHC 2957 (Admin) (18 November 2009)

In this case, the England and Wales High Court held that the extradition of an asylum seeker to a safe third country did not constitute refoulement even if that country was not able to provide temporary accommodation and financial support.  The right to freedom from cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment is entrenched in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and, relevantly for this case, the European Convention on Human Rights.  However, the Court in EW found that this right did not impose a positive obligation to ensure a ‘general right to accommodation or a minimum standard of living’ and, as such, would not be breached by the extradition.  The Court stated that ‘the setting of such a minimum standard – no matter how low – is a matter for social legislation, not the courts’.

Read More
The Right to Water: South African Court Considers Justiciability of Socio-Economic Rights and the Roles of Courts and Parliaments

Mazibuko v City of Johanesburg [2009] ZACC 29 (8 October 2009)

The decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa in Mazibuko v City of Johannesburg [2009] ZACC 28 is the first to consider the right of access to sufficient water entrenched in the South African Bill of Rights.  Its elucidation of the principles to be applied when Courts adjudicate cases based on economic and social rights will be crucial to the understanding of these rights both within and outside South Africa.

Read More
Planning Law and the Right to a Fair Hearing

Thomson v ACT Planning and Land Authority [2009] ACAT 38 (2 October 2009) 

On 2 October 2009, the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (‘ACAT’) handed down a decision which discussed whether the limitation on ACAT’s jurisdiction to hear applications for review of planning decisions breached the right to a fair trial as protected under the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) (the ‘HRA’).  The Court held that the limitation on their jurisdiction was proportionate.

Read More
The Disability Act and the Right to Housing

Conroy v Yooralla Society of Victoria [2009] VCAT 1873 (7 September 2009)

The Applicant, Mr Conroy had a physical disability and had lived in a community residential unit operated by the Respondent (Yooralla Society of Victoria) for 12 years before receiving two notices to vacate under the Disability Act 2008.  The first Notice alleged that the Applicant endangered the safety of other residents or staff; the second, that he caused serious disruption to the proper use and enjoyment of the premises by other residents.

Read More
Right to Privacy and Unlawfulness of Eviction into Homelessness

Homeground Services v Mohamed (Residential Tenancies) [2009] VCAT 1131 (6 July 2009)

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (‘VCAT’) has held that a non-profit welfare agency acted unlawfully pursuant to s 38(1) of the Victorian Charterin seeking to evict a young tenant from transitional housing in accordance with a ‘youth tenancy policy’ in circumstances in which it was likely that the tenant would thereby become homeless.

Read More
UK Court of Appeal Considers Definitions of ‘Public Authority’ and ‘Private Act’

London & Quadrant Housing Trust v Weaver, R (On the application of) [2009] EWCA Civ 587 (18 June 2009)

A recent decision of the Court of Appeal has revisited the vexed issue of the definition of ‘public authority’.  The decision warrants attention for a number of reasons.  First, the decision acts as clear authority that a social landlord is a public authority, and that the act of terminating the tenancy of a tenant is not a private act and is therefore susceptible to judicial review under the Human Rights Act 1998 (UK) (‘HRA’).  Second, the decision highlights the need for clear legislative guidance on what constitutes a ‘public authority’.  This is discussed further below.

Read More