High Court Rules Against NT Housing
On 3 December 2025, the High Court ruled unanimously against the Northern Territory government when it handed down its decision in the matter of Badari v Minister for Territory Families and Urban Housing. This page outlines the decision, which will have implications for thousands of people living in public housing in remote parts of the Northern Territory.
Legislation
Section 23 of the Housing Act 1982 provides that the Minister for Housing may, from time to time, set the price of:
- a dwelling or class of dwelling; or
- premises or a class premises
that is let under a prescribed housing scheme.
The facts
The application was brought by four tenants living in public housing in remote communities in the Northern Territory. Three of the plaintiffs were from the community of Gunbalanya and one was from Laramba.
The plaintiffs lived in properties leased from the Department of Housing under the Housing Act 1982 under leases that allowed the rental rate to be set by a determination made by the Minister for Housing under section 23 of the Housing Act 1982.
During 2021 to 2023, the NT government introduced the Remote Rental framework. This was a policy that changed the way rent was calculated for public housing in remote areas. Instead of being calculated on the basis of an individual’s income (as occurs with urban public housing), rent was set at a flat rate based on the number of bedrooms in the house.
The effect of this policy change was that rent for remote tenants like the plaintiffs increased significantly, making life more difficult for an already disadvantaged population.
The plaintiffs’ argument
The plaintiffs argued that the Minister’s power to fix rental rates under section 23 of the Housing Act 1982 was implicitly premised on a requirement to afford procedure fairness to tenants. This meant that people living in affected housing should have been given notice of the rental increase that was being proposed and an opportunity to be heard on how the change would affect them.
The plaintiffs also argued that the Minister’s exercise of the power under section 23 was unreasonable. This was because:
- it took no account of how far affected housing was from government, health, and educational services in comparison with urban housing; and
- it departed from the usual model for determining rental rates without explanation or justification.
The High Court’s decision
The High Court unanimously found in favour of the plaintiffs.
The court found that the Minister had a duty to afford procedural fairness to the tenants when exercising his power under section 23. This required him to provide the tenants with advance notice of the proposed rental increase, and with the opportunity to make submissions about how it would affect them.
As this was not done, procedural fairness was not afforded. That failure was a material failure as the tenants were likely to have had something to say about the proposed change in the manner of calculation of rental rates, which communities were included, and the timing of the change.
The High Court found that it was unnecessary to make a determination as to whether the section 23 power had been exercised unreasonably.
The court found that the decisions made under the Remote Rental Framework were invalid, overturning decisions made by three lower courts.
Implications of the decision
This decision will have a broad range of implications for tenants in the Northern Territory and beyond.
First of all, many tenants in public housing in the NT will have paid rent under the Remote Rental Framework and will now be entitled to reimbursement.
Secondly, the NT housing department will have to come up with another framework for determining the rental amount to be paid by tenants in remote communities.
Thirdly, rent determinations by NT Housing in the future will have to ensure that they comply with procedure fairness, as delineated by the High Court in this decision.
The decisions of housing department in other jurisdictions may also potentially be influenced by this decision in how they approach remote and vulnerable tenants in the future
If you require legal advice or representation in any legal matter, please contact Go To Court Lawyers.
Fernanda Dahlstrom is a writer, editor and lawyer. She holds a Bachelor of Laws (Latrobe University), a Graduate Diploma in Legal Practice (College of Law), a Bachelor of Arts (The University of Melbourne) and a Master of Arts (Deakin University). Fernanda practised law for eight years, working in criminal law, child protection and domestic violence law in the Northern Territory, and in family law in Queensland.