Cleaning costs still payable after a tenancy ended for domestic violence: award raised to $782.60 (QCAT, 2026)

What happened

The tenant rented a property managed by Meraki Property Management Pty Ltd. On 4 February 2025 she served a Form 20 notice ending her tenancy interest because of domestic violence, with supporting evidence. Under the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) (the RTRA Act), that notice gives seven days' notice, so the handover day was 11 February 2025.

When she gave the notice, the tenant asked the agent to arrange carpet cleaning, pest control and lawn mowing, because wet weather meant she could not do the yard herself. The agent obtained quotes, the tenant approved them, and the work was arranged. After the exit inspection the agent invited the tenant back to fix cleaning and repair items. Some were attended to and some were not. Entry and exit condition reports with colour photographs, and invoices for the work, were put before the tribunal.

The landlord and agent applied to QCAT as a minor civil dispute, claiming $544.29 rent arrears, $335.50 carpet cleaning and pest control, $242.00 lawn maintenance, $440.00 top-up bond cleaning, $553.50 for a replacement dining room blind, $902.00 for tenant and pet damage, the $153.70 filing fee and $250.00 for the agent's cost of preparing for and appearing at the hearing. The $1,840.00 bond had already been paid to them and the tenant had paid a further $300.00, so the net claim was $2,038.99.

On 28 October 2025 an Acting Magistrate sitting as a tribunal member awarded only $7.10. The claims for rent arrears, the blind, repairs, pet damage and the filing fee were allowed, but the claims for carpet cleaning, pest control, lawn maintenance and top-up cleaning were dismissed as "end of tenancy" costs that section 308G(2) of the RTRA Act said the departing tenant was not liable to pay. The claim for the agent's $250.00 preparation and appearance fee was refused.

What each side wanted

The landlord and the managing agent asked for leave to appeal and said the tribunal below had made an error of law: that it had misread section 308G of the RTRA Act, and had failed to consider section 188(4) (the tenant's duty to leave the premises in the condition they were in at the start, fair wear and tear excepted) and section 420 (the orders the tribunal can make for a breach of a tenancy agreement). They also argued the $250.00 preparation and representation fee should have been treated as a loss flowing from a breach, recoverable under section 420, rather than as legal costs under section 100 of the QCAT Act. They sought their $392.40 appeal filing fee and a further $250.00 for the appeal. The tenant did not take part in the appeal, and she was given a pseudonym under section 159 of the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld).

What the tribunal decided

The Appeal Tribunal granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal. It set aside the decision in Q8406-25 (Townsville) made 28 October 2025 and substituted a decision that the tenant must pay the landlord and agent $782.60. There was no order as to costs.

That figure was built from the original $7.10 award, which was not reopened because it was not challenged, plus the $335.50 for carpet cleaning and pest control and the $440.00 for top-up cleaning, both of which the Appeal Tribunal allowed. The $242.00 lawn maintenance claim was dismissed. The magistrate had found that at the start of the tenancy there was effectively no lawn, while the exit report showed it looking lush, so there was no breach of the duty to return the property in its starting condition.

The claims for the agent's $250.00 hearing fee, the $250.00 appeal preparation fee and the $392.40 appeal filing fee were all refused.

Why the tribunal decided it that way

The Appeal Tribunal granted leave because the meaning of section 308G(2)(a) had not been decided before and raised a question of general importance about who carries end-of-tenancy costs when a tenancy ends under the domestic and family violence provisions.

On the law, section 308G(2) says a tenant whose tenancy or tenancy interest ends under those provisions is not liable for costs relating to the ending of the agreement, costs relating to goods left behind, or reletting costs. The Appeal Tribunal accepted that "relating to" is a broad phrase, but read it in context, including the explanatory notes to the Housing Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 (Qld), which described the purpose as letting a tenant experiencing domestic violence leave quickly with liability for end of tenancy costs capped to seven days' notice.

The key distinction drawn was between two different kinds of liability. Costs that arise because the tenancy was ended early, such as reletting costs and rent until a new tenant is found, are covered by the protection. Costs that arise because the tenant did not meet an obligation that applied no matter how the tenancy ended, such as the duty under section 188(2) to keep the premises clean and section 188(4) to leave them in their starting condition, are not. The Appeal Tribunal said the character of a cost is not decided by the fact that it is worked out or paid after the tenancy ends. It also pointed to section 188(5), which expressly protects a tenant from having to repair or pay for damage caused by an act of domestic violence experienced by that tenant: Parliament had set out the protections it intended, and reading section 308G as a blanket exemption would strip section 188(4) of its effect and sit oddly with section 188(5). It added one qualification: because section 308G(2)(b) separately covers goods left behind, rubbish removal or cleaning largely caused by abandoned goods may need to be looked at separately, case by case.

On the money claimed for preparing and appearing, the Appeal Tribunal held the magistrate was right. Section 100 of the QCAT Act starts from each party bearing its own costs. Section 102(2) limits costs in a minor civil dispute to those stated in the rules, and rule 83 of the QCAT Rules allows only an order that a losing respondent pay the applicant's filing fee. The tribunal simply had no power to award preparation or representation fees. On the appeal filing fee of $392.40, the Appeal Tribunal said an order would not be a refund from the registry but a payment by the tenant. Although the appeal raised an untested question of law and the landlord and agent largely won, the tenant had not disadvantaged anyone by not taking part, no evidence of the landlord's finances was given, and the evidence about the tenant's finances when the tenancy ended was that they were parlous. Calling it finely balanced, the Appeal Tribunal declined to depart from the usual position that each party bears its own costs.

What this means if you are in a similar position

If you are a landlord, an agent or a tenant in a tenancy that ended under the domestic violence provisions, this decision shows where the line is drawn. The protection covers costs that flow from the tenancy being ended early, such as reletting and rent after the handover day. It does not switch off the tenant's ordinary duty to keep the property clean and to leave it, as far as possible, in the condition it was in at the start, apart from fair wear and tear, and apart from damage caused by an act of domestic violence experienced by the tenant.

The lawn claim shows that the protection was never the only hurdle. Even where a cost is recoverable in principle, the party claiming it still has to prove the breach, the loss and a reasonable amount. Here the entry condition report showed no real lawn at the start, so returning the property with grass growing was not a breach of anything, and the mowing invoice went nowhere. Entry and exit condition reports with photographs, and invoices, were what the tribunal worked from on both sides.

The costs rulings are worth noting too. In a minor civil dispute at QCAT, each side normally pays its own way, and the most that can usually be ordered against a losing respondent is the filing fee. An agent's charge for preparing for or appearing at a hearing is not recoverable, and even a filing fee is a discretion rather than a given. In disputes like this, most people start by putting the claim in writing: an itemised claim against the bond and a written demand for anything above it, with the condition reports and invoices attached, and then a tribunal application if that is not resolved.

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

Source: Nair & Anor v Kelso [2026] QCATA 78 (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.