Landlord allowed to refuse a tenant’s cat after the body corporate said no (TASCAT, 2026)

What happened

The tenant rented a one-bedroom strata title unit in Hobart, built in the 1980s, in good condition and carpeted. It is one of four joined units in a complex. The landlord owns only the tenant's unit, not the other three. The four units and the common property form a strata scheme under the Strata Titles Act 1998, and a body corporate has been set up for it, run by a manager.

The tenant asked the landlord in writing for consent to keep a cat in the unit. The cat is a female rescue kitten of no particular breed, about six or seven months old and microchipped. At the time of the hearing she was being looked after by a friend of the tenant at other premises. The tenant planned to keep her indoors, where she would be alone during the working day.

The landlord refused consent. Her main reason was that the body corporate had adopted the model by-laws set out in the Strata Titles Act, and those by-laws say an animal cannot be brought into or kept in a unit without the body corporate's written approval. The tenant asked the body corporate's manager for that approval, and the manager refused it.

The landlord also said that even without the by-law she would have refused. She did not want a kitten on the premises, pointed out the unit has no outdoor area, and said the unit is close to a hospital in a high traffic area, which she considered unsafe for a kitten. None of the basic facts were in dispute.

What each side wanted

The landlord applied to the Tribunal for a determination that she could refuse written consent, relying on the body corporate by-law that requires the body corporate's written approval for any animal, and on her own concerns about the lack of outdoor space and the traffic risk to the kitten. The tenant argued she should be allowed to keep the cat, saying the cat would live indoors and be kept safe. Both sides represented themselves.

What the tribunal decided

The Tribunal made a single order: the landlord, as the owner of the residential premises, "may refuse to give written consent" to the tenant keeping the pet specified in the undated request that was the subject of the application (file CCS/2026/10).

No money was ordered to be paid by either side. The practical effect is that the cat cannot be kept in the unit.

Why the tribunal decided it that way

The Residential Tenancy Act 1997 was changed by the Residential Tenancy Amendment (Pets) Act 2025, which started on 20 March 2026. Part 3C of the Act now starts from the position that a tenant may keep a pet. Under section 36R the tenant asks the owner for written consent; under section 36S the owner must give or refuse consent within 14 days, and if the owner refuses, the owner must tell the tenant in writing and apply to the Tribunal. Section 36S(2) says an owner "must not unreasonably refuse" the request. Section 36U lets the Tribunal decide either that the tenant may keep the pet or that the owner may refuse consent. This was the first case under Part 3C to go to a hearing.

Section 36V lists grounds the Tribunal may take into account: whether keeping the pet "would have" the effect of causing a nuisance at the premises or nearby, causing damage beyond reasonable wear and tear, posing an unacceptable risk to a person's safety, posing an unacceptable risk to the safety or welfare of the pet or another animal, or clashing with a conservation covenant or program. The Tribunal said the words "nuisance", "unacceptable risk" and "more than reasonable" wear and tear show the Act expects a certain level of inconvenience, normal wear and risk to be accepted. It also said the word "would" sets a higher level of certainty than "might" or "could": the negative effect has to be expected, not just possible.

On the landlord's own reasons, the Tribunal found against her. The traffic concern was "entirely speculative", especially as the cat was to live indoors, so it was not an unacceptable risk to the cat's safety or welfare. The lack of an outdoor area was not, on its own, a reasonable ground to refuse consent for an indoor cat, with no evidence that outdoor space was needed for the cat's welfare. On those issues alone, the Tribunal said it would have found the refusal unreasonable and allowed the tenant to keep the cat.

The by-law changed the result. Section 36R(4) says the general right to keep a pet does not override other laws, including by-laws made by a body corporate under section 90 of the Strata Titles Act 1998. Clause 7 of the model by-laws the body corporate had adopted bans animals without the body corporate's written approval (with an exception for guide dogs). By-laws bind both the owner and the occupier, can be enforced by notice and then by a Tribunal order, and a breach can attract a fine of up to 50 penalty units, which the Tribunal noted is currently $10,250. The body corporate is a separate legal entity from the owner, and here its manager had actually refused approval. Because of that refusal, consent from the landlord would have been "academic and of no practical effect". The landlord's refusal matched the body corporate's lawful position, so it was reasonable. The Tribunal added that if no application had been made to the body corporate at all, so that approval was still possible, the mere existence of the by-law might not have been enough.

What this means if you are in a similar position

If you are in a similar position, this decision shows how the newer Tasmanian pet rules work in practice. The starting point is that a renter may keep a pet, and an owner cannot unreasonably refuse. The owner carries the procedural burden: refuse in writing within 14 days and then apply to the Tribunal for a ruling. The grounds in the Act are set at a real level, not a worry level. A fear about traffic, or the absence of a yard for an indoor cat, was not enough here because there was no evidence the harm was expected rather than merely possible.

This decision also shows that strata by-laws sit on top of the tenancy rules rather than being swept aside by them. Where a body corporate has adopted by-laws requiring written approval for animals, and the body corporate has actually refused approval, an owner's matching refusal can be reasonable even if the owner's other reasons would have failed. The Tribunal drew a line between that situation and one where approval has never been sought, where the possibility of approval is still open.

Where the premises are in a strata scheme or body corporate, the step most people take first is a clear written request to the strata manager or body corporate asking for the written approval the by-laws require, keeping a copy of the answer. If the matter still cannot be resolved between the parties, the next stage is an application to the tribunal, which is what the Act requires an owner to do after refusing consent.

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

Source: Bonner v Lockhart [2026] TASCAT 60 (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.