Any Teeth To ‘Adequate’ In Human Right To Housing? Australian High Court Will Decide

A huge, frightening snake head appears over the edge of a house
The Big Snake photo by Michael Coghlan is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0

Here’s an update about the government of Australia’s Northern Territory and the housing it provides to its tenants.

Last year, tenants brought a court case over the definition of adequate housing. One of the plaintiffs had been living in a home where the back door was missing for five years. The Territory argued that the home was adequate. The Judge agreed with the tenant and went further to hand down a definition of adequate. Try: Australia: ‘Adequate’ Housing = Reasonable Comfort

The tenants are back in court again, this time over the question of compensation for disappointment and distress. The landlord argues that going without a back door is ‘no big deal.’

From the tenant point of view, however, there is plenty of disappointment and distress to go round when snakes slither in while the door is missing! Can this situation, and many others, be grounds for a suit claiming recompense for ‘inadequate’ housing? Read more at ABC NEWS: High Court to decide if Santa Teresa public housing tenants can sue Northern Territory government for disappointment and distress