Landlord’s $15,000 claim against Defence Housing Australia dismissed: a company is not a tenant (ACAT, 2026)

What happened

The applicant owns a house in Forde in the ACT. In October 2024 he leased it to Defence Housing Australia so that Defence personnel and their families could be accommodated there. Two documents were signed: a Form 072-SL Sublease that started on 3 October 2024, and a Property Care Contract dated 14 October 2024.

On 3 March 2026 the owner applied to ACAT under the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (the RT Act). He asked for a range of orders about repair and maintenance work to the house, and for $15,000 in compensation for breach of the Property Care Contract. Defence Housing Australia objected to the tribunal hearing the case at all. It said the Property Care Contract was not a residential tenancy agreement, and that as a Commonwealth entity it could not be bound by ACT tribunal orders.

The matter was listed for a directions hearing on 20 April 2026. Both sides had already filed written submissions and both said they were ready to argue the jurisdiction question that day, and both turned down the tribunal's offer to list the matter again later with time for more submissions. The owner represented himself. Defence Housing Australia was represented by two lawyers from the Australian Government Solicitor. The tribunal reserved its decision.

After the hearing the owner asked for leave to file extra submissions about whether the agreement met the statutory definition of a residential tenancy agreement. That was refused at first, because the hearing had finished. He then filed a formal application for interim or other orders. On 5 May 2026 the tribunal granted it, so that the process stayed fair, treated his extra submissions as filed, and directed Defence Housing Australia to reply by 20 May 2026. No reply submissions were received.

What each side wanted

The owner argued the two documents should be read as one agreement, and that it ticked every box in section 6B of the RT Act: it gave Defence Housing Australia a right to occupy residential premises as a home for Defence personnel in exchange for rent, it was a signed 25-page written document, and it said on its face that it was a residential tenancy agreement, including a schedule headed "Details of Residential Tenancy Agreement – ACT" and a footer on every page reading "Residential Tenancy Agreement ACT". He also relied on the construction of the Court Procedures Act 2004, on the High Court's decision in Re Residential Tenancies Tribunal of NSW v Henderson about Commonwealth liability under tenancy laws, and on section 27 of the Commonwealth self-government legislation. Defence Housing Australia argued the two documents were separate, that only the Property Care Contract was in dispute, that the contract was about providing property care services for a fee rather than renting a home, and that the claim was really a contract claim in the tribunal's civil jurisdiction, where (it said) the tribunal could not bind the Commonwealth.

What the tribunal decided

The tribunal made a single order: the application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. "Want of jurisdiction" means the tribunal has no legal power to decide the case, so it does not reach the merits of the claim. No money was ordered to be paid, and the $15,000 claim and the repair orders were not dealt with.

The tribunal also decided not to move the case across to its civil jurisdiction (the part of ACAT that hears contract and debt disputes) on its own initiative under rule 36 of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Procedures Rules 2024.

The tribunal added that this does not necessarily leave the owner without a remedy. If he starts fresh proceedings in the tribunal's civil jurisdiction, both sides should be ready to address the issues raised in the reasons as a priority; otherwise, any case about the agreements would need to be brought in a forum that has authority over the Commonwealth, and he may wish to get legal advice before choosing that course.

Why the tribunal decided it that way

The tribunal started with the threshold question of whether the RT Act applied at all. Under section 72 of that Act, a "tenancy dispute" must be between the parties to a residential tenancy agreement and must be about or arise from that agreement. Section 6A says an agreement is a residential tenancy agreement only if, among other things, the premises are for the tenant to use as a home. Section 6B then says a written agreement that expressly states it is a residential tenancy agreement counts as one — but only if it still complies with section 6A.

That last point decided the case. Following two earlier ACAT decisions, the tribunal held that a corporation cannot occupy premises as a home for itself; only a natural person, or a group of people, can. On the evidence, Defence Housing Australia was subletting the house to eligible Defence personnel and was not using it as its own home or residence. So it was not a "tenant" under the RT Act, and for the same reasons not an "occupant" under section 71B. It followed that neither the Sublease nor the Property Care Contract, separately or together, was a residential tenancy agreement under section 6A — and because section 6B still requires compliance with section 6A, the headings and footers saying "Residential Tenancy Agreement" could not change that. Nor were they occupancy agreements under section 71C. The tribunal noted the agreements might still be enforceable contracts, and that Defence Housing Australia could be a tenant under some other legal framework, but made no findings about that. Because the owner had not got past the threshold question, the tribunal did not need to decide whether the two documents were one agreement or two, or the arguments based on the Henderson case.

On transferring the case to the civil jurisdiction, the tribunal said that question turned first on whether it could bind the Commonwealth there. Section 27 of the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 (Cth) provides that ACT laws do not bind the Crown in right of the Commonwealth unless a Commonwealth regulation says they do, and regulation 5 of the 2021 Self-Government Regulations lists the ACT laws that can. At the time of the reasons the ACAT Act was not on that list. The tribunal agreed that the listing of the Court Procedures Act 2004 did not help, because it is not a source of the tribunal's jurisdiction in this case, and it referred to an earlier ACAT decision that had examined whether the listing of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 carried through to ACAT's civil jurisdiction. The parties had not argued any of this, nor the questions about Burns v Corbett and whether deciding the claim would involve exercising judicial power. Given that uncertainty and the lack of argument, the tribunal was not satisfied it was appropriate to transfer the case itself, and dismissed the application.

What this means if you are in a similar position

If you are in a similar position, this decision shows that what a document calls itself does not settle which law covers it. The ACT's residential tenancy law turns on substance: whether the person given the right to occupy is using the place as their home. A written agreement headed "Residential Tenancy Agreement" still has to meet the basic definition in section 6A, so a company, government entity or other organisation that takes a lease and then puts other people in the property may not be a "tenant" for the purposes of that Act — even where the paperwork uses the word.

The decision also shows that the forum matters as much as the merits. A tribunal can only decide disputes it has power over, and where the other side is a Commonwealth entity there are extra questions about whether territory laws bind it. A dismissal for want of jurisdiction is not a finding that the claim is weak; it means the claim was brought in a place that could not hear it. Here the tribunal expressly left open whether the agreements were enforceable contracts and where a claim about them could properly be run.

In disputes about repairs, maintenance or money owed under a written agreement, the step most people take first is a written notice or demand that identifies the agreement, lists exactly what is said to be wrong, and asks for the work to be done or the money paid by a set date. If that does not resolve it, an application to the tribunal or court that has power over the other party is the usual next stage.

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

Source: APPLICANT RT2442026 v DEFENCE HOUSING AUSTRALIA (Residential Tenancies) [2026] ACAT 42 (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.