Landlord must return the full $2,320 bond but wins $2,183 for rent arrears, cleaning and repairs (NTCAT, 2026)

What happened

In February 2024 the landlord, through his agent Wealthmax Real Estate, signed a residential tenancy agreement with two co-tenants for a fully furnished house in the Darwin suburb of Moil. The term ran 78 weeks to 4 July 2025, the rent was $580 a week paid fortnightly in advance, and the security deposit (the bond) was $2,320. The agreement said no more than four people could ordinarily live there and that the tenants could not sublet without the owner's written consent. An entry inspection report was prepared on the first day and given to the tenants, who neither signed it nor marked any changes.

Both sides agreed the house was always meant to be a share house. The remaining tenant advertised rooms online under the name "Pakistan House Darwin". The co-tenant later moved interstate and it was agreed he stopped being a tenant and had no liability. In January 2025 the remaining tenant started a job in Katherine, moved there, and left one of the other residents to manage the tenancy. He never moved back into the house.

In late May 2025 the landlord gave written notice of a $40 a week rent rise if the lease was renewed, then reduced that to $20 a week. No new agreement was reached, so when the fixed term ended on 4 July 2025 the tenancy rolled on as a periodic tenancy. The landlord served a notice to vacate by 14 September 2025, the other residents left on that day, and the landlord agreed to extend to 19 October. The keys were handed in at the agent's office on 20 October 2025 by one of the later residents.

The agent carried out an exit inspection on 22 October and produced a report the tenant did not sign. The tenant was not told a date or time in advance and was not there. On 24 October the agent offered a walkthrough, two days after the report, and with new tenants due to move in on the Monday. The tenant had offered on 22 October to arrange professional cleaning and fix the damage himself, and engaged a cleaner, but that cleaner fell into a fee dispute with him and returned the keys to the agent on the Friday afternoon without doing any work. No repairs, cleaning or rubbish removal were done by the tenant. The agent got another contractor in over the weekend. The landlord served a written notice of his intention to keep the bond on 30 October 2025.

What each side wanted

The landlord asked for $1,137.14 in unpaid rent, $660 for repairs, $1,870 for bond cleaning, gardening and rubbish removal, and the $252 filing fee, less $103.77 he accepted the tenant had overpaid on electricity. The tenant asked for the bond back plus the interest earned on it, argued the rent increase was invalid because the lease was never renewed, said the keys went back a day earlier than the landlord claimed, said the other rent-paying residents were not sub-tenants, and disputed the repair items as fair wear and tear. The tenant had earlier tried to bring the other residents into the case; that application was refused.

What the tribunal decided

The Tribunal ordered the landlord to repay the bond of $2,320 in full. It refused the tenant's claim for interest on the bond.

The Tribunal awarded the landlord compensation of $1,137.14 for rent arrears, $215 for repairs and $935 for cleaning, gardening and rubbish removal: $2,287.14 in total, reduced by $103.77 for overpaid electricity, leaving $2,183.37 payable by the tenant.

Within the repairs figure, the Tribunal allowed $55 for two missing kitchen louvres (the landlord was invoiced for three but only two were missing), $44 for the detached laminate edge of a computer desk, $61 for two sliding door castors and $55 for two beds, and refused the $150 plus GST claimed for a shower screen seal. Within the cleaning figure it allowed $357.50 for the bond clean, $82.50 for the steam clean and $495 for gardening and rubbish removal. Every allowed repair and cleaning item was cut by half. The landlord's claim for the $252 filing fee was refused.

Why the tribunal decided it that way

On the bond, s 112(5) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1999 (NT) requires a landlord who wants to keep any of the bond to serve a notice within 7 business days after the tenant gives up vacant possession. The notice here was served on 30 October, which was late whether the tenancy ended on 19 or 20 October. Section 113(2) lets the Tribunal excuse that failure, but the landlord filed nothing to explain it and his agent's principal said at the hearing that he had miscalculated the days and "there was a lot going on". That was not enough, so the whole bond had to go back. The tenant's claim for interest failed because in the Northern Territory interest on bonds held in agents' trust accounts goes to the Northern Territory Licensed Agents Fidelity Guarantee Fund, not to the tenant.

There was a second, separate reason the bond could not be kept. Section 110 requires the landlord to fill out the final condition report in the tenant's presence, or the presence of the tenant's representative, unless that is impractical or the representative does not turn up at the agreed time. No time was ever agreed or even offered before the inspection, and an invitation sent two days afterwards did not fix that. Because s 112(4)(b) only allows a landlord to keep bond money where a condition report has been given "under section 110", a report prepared the wrong way does not count. The Tribunal still allowed the exit report into evidence: in a court, evidence obtained in breach of the law is presumed inadmissible, but under s 53 of the NTCAT Act the Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence and may inform itself as it thinks appropriate.

Returning the bond did not stop the landlord claiming compensation under s 122 for loss caused by a breach of the agreement. The tenant was held liable alone. The Tribunal found that the people who stayed and paid rent were sub-tenants, that the lease required written consent to sublet, and that telling a landlord the place is a "share house" is not the same as naming a proposed sub-tenant and asking for consent. On rent, s 83 means a fixed-term agreement continues on the same terms as a periodic tenancy when the term ends, so the tenancy did not stop on 4 July 2025, and the $20 a week increase had been notified in line with s 41 (the agreement contained a right to increase and a method of calculation, and more than 30 days' written notice was given). The end date was 20 October, the day the keys went in, based on the agent's email of that day. Because the tenant never signed or amended the entry condition report, under ss 26 and 28 he is taken to have accepted it and it is conclusive evidence of the condition of the house at the start.

The 50% discount came from mitigation of loss, which the Tribunal must take into account under ss 120 and 122(3)(e). Both sides failed to take reasonable steps. The agent knew of the duty to let the tenant attend the exit inspection and breached it anyway, denying the tenant the chance and time to clean and repair, which could have reduced the landlord's bill. But the tenant, having offered to do the work, then did nothing at all. Trying to be fair to both, the Tribunal halved the compensation for loss or damage. On the individual items, s 51(2) requires premises to be given back in a reasonable state of repair and reasonably clean, allowing for fair wear and tear, and the burden of proving that damage was fair wear and tear sits on the tenant: he met that burden on nothing, which is why the castors and the desk edge were allowed, while the shower screen seal failed because the landlord could not prove the leak arose during the tenancy. Costs are discretionary and usually go to a party who has been substantially successful; the landlord had not been, and had broken the Act by holding the bond, so the filing fee was refused.

What this means if you are in a similar position

If you are in a similar position as a landlord or agent, this decision shows how strictly the bond rules are read. The deadline in s 112(5) is counted in business days from when the tenant gives up possession, and a simple miscalculation plus a busy office was not treated as a good enough reason to be let off. It also shows that the exit condition report has to be done the way the Act sets out, with a genuine chance for the tenant or their representative to be there, because a report prepared without that step cannot support keeping the bond at all, even if the Tribunal still reads it as evidence.

The case also shows that losing the bond is not the end of a compensation claim, and that two different sets of records carry a lot of weight: an entry condition report the tenant never signed or amended became conclusive proof of the starting condition, and photographs in the reports were treated as cogent evidence of what the house looked like at the end. At the same time, both sides were marked down for mitigation. A landlord who shuts the tenant out of the exit process can have the claim reduced, and a tenant who offers to clean and repair and then does nothing can be reduced as well. Where an item's starting condition was unclear in the paperwork, the claim for it simply failed.

There is a lesson in the subletting clause too. Where a lease requires written consent to sublet, this decision treats people paying rent for rooms as sub-tenants, and treats naming each proposed sub-tenant and asking for consent as what compliance means, so the named tenant can end up carrying the whole liability. In disputes like this most people start with a written document rather than an application: an itemised bond claim and demand that sets out each amount, the condition reports and the invoices behind it, with a date to respond, and then a tribunal application if there is no agreement.

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

Source: Fay v Mir [2026] NTCAT 7 (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.