Case: Stewart v Goldman &amp; Co Pty Ltd (1947) 64 WN (NSW) 155
Outcome: cited
Residents also contend that they will be worse off by the proposed subleases. As a matter of law, I do not consider that is so. I have dealt with that issue above. There are a few additional matters which should be noted. On the evidence, the rent payable from time to time under the tenancy agreements with the Housing Associations was increased. There is the prospect that over time, through the Executive Director, the rents might further increase. That can only occur to the extent that the tenancy agreements in force permit. There is a loss of control as members of the Housing Association of the selection, from the members, of who gets a tenancy of new dwellings in the town camp, but the subleases are subject to the head lease, and so only members of the Housing Associations are eligible. There was no dispute that the proposed subleases would be subject to the terms of the head leases, entitled to the benefits and subject to the burdens of their covenants: Stewart v Goldman &amp; Co Pty Ltd (1947) 64 WN (NSW) 155 at 158. There is also a loss of control as members over the income and expenditure of the Housing Associations, and over what action is taken in the event of non-payment of rent or of other breaches of the terms of a tenancy agreement, because those matters become the function and responsibility of the Executive Director, the Northern Territory or Territory Housing, and then through the Housing Authority. Those decisions may only be made after the consultation with the Housing Associations imposed by clause 10.1(c). As a matter of strict interpretation, despite the consultation provided for, the Executive Director or a Housing Authority may adopt a stricter or different view of what is appropriate on those matters than the Housing Associations have done in the past. Thus, whilst I have concluded that the existing tenancy rights and obligations are preserved by the proposed subleases, there is some scope for those rights and obligations to be enforced in a somewhat different way than has occurred in the past. There is some evidence that, in the past, Territory Housing where it has had such a role has adopted a less tolerant attitude to tenants' contraventions of the terms of the tenancy agreements than have the Housing Associations. The Northern Territory has pointed out that, if the Northern Territory or Territory Housing is the relevant Housing Authority, any new tenancy agreements will comply with the requirements of the Housing Act (NT) and the Housing Regulations (NT). They are not requirements which in any material way differ from the terms of the existing tenancy agreements. It has also pointed out that, where it has performed or is performing that role in other Aboriginal Communities, it has established a Housing Reference Group to assist in the selection of new tenants from amongst the eligible persons and to ensure its awareness of cultural concerns and issues which might affect its management of such housing. Consultation processes for such purposes are built into the proposed subleases. There is no reason to think that, despite the concerns of the Residents, the Northern Territory or Territory Housing (or any entity) appointed as a Housing Authority under one of the proposed subleases would act inappropriately or unreasonably or inconsistently with the shared intention of improving the housing and support facilities in the town camps. I, therefore, do not consider that the concerns of the Residents discussed in the preceding paragraph of these reasons provide a sound reason for upholding the Residents' primary contentions. Execution of the Proposed Subleases by the Housing Associations A sublease has been executed by each Housing Association that is a party to the Sublease proceeding, but has not been exchanged. The executed subleases are currently held by the Council, pending the outcome of these proceedings.