Appeal dismissed: a single threat to “blacklist” a tenant was not a breach of quiet enjoyment (NCAT, 2026)

What happened

The tenant rented premises at Waitara in New South Wales under a residential tenancy agreement dated 1 February 2025. The agreement ran for an initial six-month term, from 4 February 2025 to 3 August 2025.

On 18 June 2025 the landlord's agent emailed the tenant a notice of termination on the ground that the premises were to be sold. On the morning of 20 June 2025 the tenant replied that the notice appeared to be retaliatory and that he was considering taking the matter to NCAT. The agent answered that the sale and the lease term had both been disclosed before he applied, and that the landlord was happy to meet him at NCAT. The tenant then asked for the agent's correct trading name so he could prepare the application.

At 9:59am the agent sent the email at the centre of the case. It gave the trading name, then said: "Please be aware that if the NCAT rules in the landlord's favour, it's our common practice to put the tenant on the blacklist of National Tenant Database. I thought it's important for you to understand the risk for you." A residential tenancy database is a commercial list of former tenants that agents can check when assessing rental applications.

The tenant started proceedings in the Consumer and Commercial Division on 23 June 2025, raising several complaints: the database threat, the termination notice, privacy, ventilation and maintenance. At the hearing on 22 October 2025 the Tribunal ordered the landlord to pay the tenant $660, by rent credit, as a rent reduction equal to one week's rent, for withdrawal of facilities and interference with quiet enjoyment and privacy. It found the termination notice invalid because it did not comply with the residential tenancies regulation, so the question of whether it was retaliatory did not arise. It dismissed the claim about the database threat, saying the email was not a notice under the database provisions of the Act and that it had no power to deal with the issue until the tenant was actually given such a notice. By then the landlord had changed agents, and the agent who sent the email was not the one who appeared on the appeal.

What each side wanted

The tenant appealed only the part of the decision about the database threat. He asked the Appeal Panel to set that part aside and order the landlord to pay him a further $5,000 for breach of quiet enjoyment and for unconscionable conduct, which means taking unfair advantage of a much stronger bargaining position. He argued the first Tribunal had wrongly treated the database provisions as the only possible basis for the claim, had failed to deal with his quiet enjoyment argument, had failed to consider unconscionable conduct, and had left tenants with no remedy until the damage was already done. The landlord's new agent did not oppose extending time for the appeal and accepted at the hearing that the 20 June email was not appropriate, but resisted the appeal.

What the tribunal decided

The Appeal Panel made three orders: time for filing the Notice of Appeal was extended to 13 November 2025; leave to appeal was refused; and the appeal was dismissed.

The tenant's notice of appeal had been filed eight days after the 14-day deadline that applies to appeals in residential proceedings. Because the delay was short and the landlord did not oppose it, time was extended.

No further money was ordered. The $660 rent credit from the first decision was not disturbed, and the $5,000 the tenant sought was refused.

Why the tribunal decided it that way

An internal appeal can be brought as of right on a question of law, but otherwise only with the Appeal Panel's leave. Leave can be granted only if the appellant may have suffered a substantial miscarriage of justice, for example because the decision was not fair and equitable, was against the weight of the evidence, or because significant new evidence has come up that was not reasonably available earlier. The Appeal Panel also noted that an appeal is not a chance to run the case again.

The ground that the decision had unfortunate consequences for tenants did not raise a question of law, so it needed leave. The Appeal Panel said the law on tenancy databases is in Part 11 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW), and that s 212 allows a listing only in limited circumstances: the person must have been named as a tenant under an agreement that has ended, must have breached the agreement, must owe more than the bond because of that breach or be subject to a termination order, and the information listed must be accurate and clear. Filing a Tribunal application could not possibly meet those conditions, so the threat was unwarranted and, in the Appeal Panel's words, the agent's conduct "is to be deprecated". But the fact that a threat should never have been made does not by itself give the tenant a right to compensation. The Tribunal must apply the law, and if the law gives no remedy for particular conduct, the Tribunal cannot invent one or make an order simply because the order might deter bad behaviour.

On the unconscionable conduct ground, the tenant accepted he had not raised that allegation at the first hearing. A tribunal cannot be said to have failed to deal with an argument that was never put to it, and an appeal is not the place to start a new claim.

On quiet enjoyment, s 50 of the Act gives a tenant the right to quiet enjoyment of the premises and stops a landlord or agent interfering with the tenant's reasonable peace, comfort or privacy. The test drawn from the case law is whether there was substantial interference with the tenant's ordinary and lawful use of the premises through conduct that was deliberate, or careless in the sense that the consequences were reasonably foreseeable. The tenant had not provided a transcript, a sound recording or his first-instance evidence, so the Appeal Panel could not tell whether he had clearly put the quiet enjoyment argument about this email to the first Tribunal at all. Even assuming he had, the Appeal Panel held the email was not a breach. Earlier decisions have held that letters foreshadowing termination, arrears letters, and even a notice of termination are not breaches on their own, while sustained, orchestrated harassment can be. Here the conduct was a single email, deliberate but not repeated and not persistent, and that fell well short of harassment. Because there was no breach, there was no substantial miscarriage of justice in the tenant not receiving compensation, and leave had to be refused.

What this means if you are in a similar position

If you are in a similar position, this decision shows how the rules on tenancy databases and quiet enjoyment are applied in practice. The grounds for listing someone on a database are narrow and set out in the Act, and a tenant who is actually sent a listing notice has a defined path to the Tribunal. A threat to list someone, made before any notice exists, sits outside that path, and the decision shows that a tribunal will not award compensation for conduct simply because the conduct was wrong or deserved criticism.

It also shows what the quiet enjoyment rule is aimed at. The question is whether the landlord or agent substantially interfered with the use of the home. One rude or improper email was treated very differently from a pattern of pressure, repeated threats or conduct that made the premises hard to live in. The decision also illustrates why the record of the first hearing matters on an appeal: without a transcript, a recording or the evidence filed below, an appeal panel may not be able to confirm that an argument was ever clearly put.

In disputes like this, the step most people take first is a written notice or demand to the landlord or agent that sets out each breach, what it cost them and what they are asking for, before making an application to the tribunal if the matter is not resolved.

How to apply: our step-by-step guide to a NCAT application. More decisions: NCAT cases and house rentals and bonds.

Source: Staats v Cartwright [2026] NSWCATAP 289 (read the full decision). This summary was prepared from the published decision for general information. It is not legal advice, and the tribunal’s own reasons are the authoritative record.