QCAT update - Quiet enjoyment and mutual termination

In this article, we consider a recent decision of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, in its appellate jurisdiction, regarding quiet enjoyment and mutual termination under the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) (the RTRA Act).

Atkinson v Anderson [2025] QCATA 69

The Applicant and his partner were former residents of a room in the Respondent’s home. A dispute arose between the parties two weeks after commencement of the agreement, with the Respondent subsequently issuing the Applicant with a Notice to Leave. The Applicant and his partner vacated the property and the bond was returned.

Almost six months later, the Applicant filed an application in the Tribunal alleging that he was “unlawfully evicted”, claiming a total of $24,990 in compensation, including $10,500 for loss of past and future income and $10,000 for general damages, stress, humiliation, loss of dignity, all related suffering and hurt.

The Tribunal dismissed the application at first instance and the Applicant appealed the Tribunal’s decision.

The relevant grounds of the appeal discussed in this article are:

1. Did the Respondent interfere with the Applicant’s quiet enjoyment; and
2. Was the agreement between the parties “wrongfully terminated”.

Quiet Enjoyment

The Applicant submitted that the Tribunal erred in determining that the Respondent’s conduct was “not an interference with his peace and comfort”. [1]

Section 249 of the RTRA Act provides that:

1. The provider must take reasonable steps to ensure the resident has quiet enjoyment of the resident’s room and common areas.
2. The provider or provider’s agent must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the resident in using the resident’s room and common areas. [2]

While the Appeal Tribunal noted that “quiet enjoyment” is not defined in the RTRA Act, it stated that:

“Conduct amounting to breach of quiet enjoyment may take many forms. At common law, the mere threatening of eviction does not amount to a breach of the obligation. Likewise, a verbal disagreement will not amount to a breach of quiet enjoyment. Ordinarily, the conduct must go to more than mere threats to take action and include a physical interference, such as repeated knocking and shouting at the tenant’s door.” [3]

The Appeal Tribunal held that while the Respondent’s conduct may have caused the Applicant “emotional distress”, it could “find no case that supports the principal that, absent a physical interference, Ms Anderson’s actions amounted to a breach of the obligation to provide quiet enjoyment.” [4]

Wrongful Termination

In determining the initial application, the Tribunal held that the Notice to Leave given to the Applicant by the Respondent “was deficient and devoid of particular requirements specified in the Act for a lawful reason to terminate the rooming accommodation agreement those things themselves do not give rise to any compensation.” [5]

The Appeal Tribunal confirmed the Tribunal was correct in determining the Notice to Leave issued by the Respondent was unlawful but went on to consider the application of section 277 of the RTRA Act, in determining whether the agreement had ended in accordance with the RTRA Act. [6]

The Appeal Tribunal referred to the mutual termination agreement signed by the Applicant and his partner, before the Notice to Leave was issued, and held that even though the document was not signed by the Respondent, “by repaying the bond, she [the Respondent] can be considered to have accepted the terms of the agreement.” [7]

The Appeal Tribunal also held that by providing the Respondent with the mutual termination agreement, the Applicant waived his right to claim compensation for breach of the agreement. The Appeal Tribunal stated that:

“A ‘waiver’ is a binding election between inconsistent rights. It is final in the sense that the inconsistent right must be regarded as having been lost. In this instance, Mr Atkinson has lost his right to claim damages.” [8]

The Appeal Tribunal ultimately refused the appeal by the Applicant.

Conclusion

This decision is a timely reminder for property managers to ensure they are familiar with all aspects of the RTRA Act, in particular the ways in which an agreement ends under either section 277 (residential tenancy agreements) or section 366 (rooming accommodation agreements) of the RTRA Act. The decision also provides useful commentary regarding what might amount to a breach of quiet enjoyment as well as circumstances where a tenant or resident may waive their rights to compensation.

Whilst all parties involved in residential tenancy disputes before the Tribunal must represent themselves (some exceptions apply), they are, of course, always able to seek legal advice regarding all aspects of a dispute. If property managers have any concerns about a residential tenancy dispute, including compliance with the RTRA Act and any other relevant legislation, it is strongly recommended that they seek legal advice.

Read another article: Rent roll sale gone awry - Decision appealed.

Or browse our suite of property management articles.