QCAT update – Rent reduction claims

In this article, we consider a recent decision of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, in its appellant jurisdiction, regarding the operation of section 94 of the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) (the RTRA Act).

McDougall v Ridley [2026] QCAT 150

The Respondents (the tenants) rented a residential property located in Toowong, which was owned by the Appellants (the lessors), for $1,300 per week. On 24 November 2024, the lessors issued a Notice to Leave requiring the tenants to vacant the property by midnight on 30 January 2025.

On 24 December 2024, the tenants lodged a dispute resolution request (Form 16) with the Residential Tenancy Authority (RTA), seeking a rent reduction pursuant to section 94 of the RTRA Act. The tenants alleged that during the tenancy, they experienced several issues including that the ensuite shower was unusable for an extended period of approximately 31 weeks and renovation works rendered the premises “unliveable” for the last month during January 2025.  The tenants subsequently vacated the property on 31 December 2024, four weeks earlier than was required by the Notice to Leave.

After receiving a Notice of Unresolved Dispute from the RTA, the tenants filed an application for a minor civil dispute in the Tribunal on 6 January 2025. The tenants sought a 100% reduction in rent pursuant to section 94 of the RTRA Act for January 2025, on the basis that the property was unliveable due to tradesmen entering the property. The tenants also sought further rent reduction including 20% of the rent for a period of 31 weeks where the tenants alleged the ensuite shower was unusable.

On 12 February 2025, the lessors filed a separate application in the Tribunal seeking unpaid rent ($5,628.58) and compensation for damage and cleaning costs. Both applications were heard together in the Tribunal on 19 August 2025.

At first instance, the Adjudicator found that there was substantial loss of amenity for 31 weeks arising from an unusable ensuite shower. However, there was no loss of amenity for the month the property was “unliveable” because the tenants had left the property.

The Adjudicator relied upon the decision in Duncan v Friend,^[1] where the Appeal Tribunal held that a tenant was “entitled to bring an application for the former lack of amenity which had, by that stage, been addressed.”

The Adjudicator held that the lessors were entitled to the sum of $1,518 from the rental bond ($5,200), and the tenants were entitled to the remaining $3,682. The Adjudicator ordered that the RTA distribute the bond accordingly.

The lessors sought leave to appeal the Adjudicator’s decision.

The Appeal

The lessors submitted that an application for rent reduction in accordance with section 94 of the RTRA Act, cannot be brought after the tenancy has ended. The lessors sought to rely upon previous decisions of the Appeal Tribunal in this regard.^[2]

The Appeal Tribunal held that it was not necessary to determine when the tenancy ended in accordance with section 277 of the RTRA Act in circumstances where the tenants had lodged the Form 16 with the RTA on 24 December 2024. The Appeal Tribunal held that pursuant to section 417 of the RTRA Act, the tenants’ application is taken to have commenced when the Form 16 was lodged with the RTA.^[3]

The lessors also submitted that the Adjudicator made an error of law in determining the section 94 of the RTRA Act is prospective in nature, but made an order that was retrospective in nature.

The Appeal Tribunal stated that:

“Whether the order that was made was prospective or retrospective does not turn upon the date on which the Orders were pronounced. Section 94 of the RTRAA has a prospective aspect to it, in as much as a tenant can only apply for rent reduction in relation to future rent that would become payable at a time after the application is made.

It does not mean that the Tribunal cannot reduce what was at the time of the application, but is no longer, future rent. The Tribunal can also reduce future rent on the basis of a loss of amenity that was suffered before the proceeding was commenced: Duncan v Friend.”^[4]

The Appeal Tribunal referred to the wording of section 94(3) of the RTRA Act and stated that:

“It is clear from the words used that the rent which would otherwise be payable is automatically to be decreased according to the extent to which the property is affected by the things in subsections (1) or (2), as the case may be. An application to the Tribunal is not necessary to give rise to the right to a rent reduction, but of course if the parties cannot agree on that issue then they a file a Dispute Resolution Request with the Residential Tenancies Authority and, if need be, they pursue an order from the Tribunal.”^[5]

The Appeal Tribunal added that:

“…if a tenant has an entitlement to a reduction in rent because of a substantial decrease in amenity, they are entitled to the rent reduction immediately and for the whole of the period during the which the loss of amenity was suffered.

If they ultimately have to apply to the Residential Tenancies Authority and then to the Tribunal, I see no impediment to them being awarded the rent reduction to which they were always entitled for the whole period of the loss of amenity, save of course that they must apply for that relief while the tenancy remains on foot and they may not be entitled to the full reduction if they have unreasonably delayed…”^[6]

The Appeal Tribunal held that the Adjudicator’s order was not retrospective in circumstances where the order was for reduction of the rent that became payable after the tenants filed the Form 16.

The Appeal Tribunal referred to the Adjudicator’s calculation that 20% of the rent for a period of 31 weeks amounted to $8,060, which was more than the rent payable for the month of January 2025, and states that perhaps this explains why the Adjudicator allowed 100% of the rent that would have been payable in January 2025.

While the Appeal Tribunal stated that it could not understand how the Adjudicator calculated the amount from the bond to be paid to the lessors, it held that correcting the miscalculation would result in the lessors receiving less that the Adjudicator’s initial order. In circumstances where this would not result in substantive relief for the lessors, the Appeal Tribunal held that this leave to appeal would not be necessary to correct a substantial injustice caused to the lessors.^[7]

Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused.

Conclusion

This decision adds to the growing number of Appeal Tribunal decisions in relation to the operation of section 94 of the RTRA Act and provides further useful clarification regarding claims for rent reduction.

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, it is strongly recommended that they seek legal advice.

Read more: Unjust enrichment in the context of residential tenancies.

Or browse our suite of property management articles.