Landlords’ appeal cuts wrongful eviction payout from $12,323 to $3,793 after rent deducted (QCAT, 2026)

What happened

The tenancy began on 25 March 2025 at a property at Agnes Water in Queensland, at $750 a week. Two days later the landlords emailed the tenants saying they had breached the agreement by not paying the $2,000 bond. A further email purported to end the tenancy without grounds on four weeks' notice. Another email then said the landlords intended to take possession back on 29 March 2025. The tenants moved out on 28 March 2025, saying in writing that they were agreeing to end the lease "under duress" and would seek damages at QCAT.

The first tribunal, a Magistrate sitting as a tribunal member, found the landlords had superseded their own breach notice, had not followed the statutory steps for ending a tenancy, and had engaged in what the member described as unconscionable behaviour. The emails and text messages in evidence included statements that the landlords would be back at the house on the Saturday with or without legal notification, that the tenants should "get the fuck out" or their children would witness ugly scenes with police, and that the landlords were "itching" to confront them. One email mentioned dog poisoning in the area and another linked to a song about dogs. The tenants went to a police station.

The tenants had claimed $15,815.27 for accommodation and storage after being forced out. They stayed in a series of short-stay places during the Queensland school holidays and Easter, starting with a booking in Agnes Water, then Noosa Heads, Brisbane, Hervey Bay and a longer stay from 20 April to 28 July 2025. Their furniture, including two king beds, a couch, a washing machine and dryer and two desks, went into storage at $5.63 a day for 92 days.

The first decision awarded the tenants $12,323.33 including the filing fee, capping the compensation at twenty-one days on the basis that the landlords could have ended the tenancy within that time. The landlords applied for leave to appeal on six grounds.

What each side wanted

The landlords argued the tribunal ignored evidence of a verbal agreement to pay the bond later, that the duress finding went against the evidence, that their own material was given too little weight, that the tenants should not get accommodation paid in full when they would have been paying rent anyway (which they said amounted to four months' free rent and a profit), that there was no evidence the tenants had tried to find a cheaper long-term rental instead of expensive short-stay places, and that one tenant, who had acted as their selling agent, had potentially cost them the sale of the property. The landlords also said their conduct was provoked by a verbal threat to burn the house down, and that swearing and provocation are not crimes. The tenants relied on their filed evidence of what they had paid and said accommodation was impossible to find at short notice over the holiday period and that their friends could not store their belongings.

What the tribunal decided

The Appeal Tribunal granted leave to appeal on one point only, the calculation of compensation, and allowed the appeal. It set aside the decision of 26 August 2025 in Q9590-25 (Bundaberg) and substituted its own decision: "The respondents must pay the applicants the sum of $3,793.83 within seven days of today's date."

That figure was built from accommodation of $4,728.84 up to and including 20 April 2025 (including a New Zealand dollar booking converted at 1.2356 to $1,797.63), less $1,821.43 for the rent the tenants would have paid for 17 days of April, giving net accommodation of $2,907.41. Storage was allowed in full at $506.92, and the $379.50 filing fee was confirmed. One claim of $2,444.20 for accommodation at Noosa Heads was refused because no receipt or invoice supported it, and the stay from 20 April to 28 July 2025, at $7,332.59 for 100 days, drew no compensation because it cost less than the rent the tenants would have paid.

The other five grounds of appeal were each found to have no merit.

Why the tribunal decided it that way

On the duress point, the Appeal Tribunal applied the test from Crescendo Management Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corp: whether pressure induced the party to agree, and whether that pressure went beyond what the law treats as legitimate. Pressure is illegitimate if it involves unlawful threats or amounts to unconscionable conduct. Given the escalating threats in the emails and texts, it was open to the first member to find the tenants' agreement to leave was not voluntary. There was no evidence of the alleged arson threat beyond the landlords' assertion, and the Appeal Tribunal noted the lawful response to such a threat would have been to call police and apply to QCAT for an urgent termination order.

More importantly, the Appeal Tribunal said the duress finding did not matter to the outcome, because the landlords simply could not end this periodic tenancy the way they tried to. Since the repeal of section 292 of the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld), which took effect on 1 October 2022, a lessor can no longer end a periodic tenancy without grounds. To end a tenancy for an unremedied breach such as an unpaid bond, a lessor must issue a notice to remedy breach in the approved form meeting section 325, let the seven-day remedy period run, then issue a Form 12 notice to leave allowing 14 days, and if the tenant still does not go, apply to the tribunal under section 293 for an order ending the tenancy. None of that happened, so the tenants had a claim for breach under section 419.

On compensation, the Appeal Tribunal applied the basic damages rule from Hadley v Baxendale: the injured party is to be put in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed. The landlords were right that the tenants should not profit, so the award had to be the difference between what the alternative accommodation cost and the rent the tenants would have paid. The error was one of mixed fact and law, because the quantum was worked out using the wrong legal test, which meant under section 147 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) the appeal had to be decided by way of rehearing. The Appeal Tribunal also rejected the twenty-one-day cap, since there was no evidence the tenants would have failed to pay the bond within the remedy period or would have refused to leave.

On whether the tenants should have found something cheaper, the Appeal Tribunal applied the mitigation principle from Karacominakis v Big Country Developments: the onus is on the party in breach to show the other side acted unreasonably and by how much, and a high standard is not demanded of the innocent party. The landlords led no evidence about cheaper accommodation being available and did not cross-examine the tenants at the hearing. The complaint about one tenant's conduct as the selling agent fell outside the tribunal's minor civil dispute jurisdiction, which covers debts and liquidated demands, vehicle property damage, dividing fences and tenancy matters, so it was correctly disregarded.

What this means if you are in a similar position

If you are in a similar position as a landlord in Queensland, this decision shows how strictly the tribunal reads the steps for ending a tenancy. A breach notice over an unpaid bond starts a seven-day clock, a notice to leave adds 14 days, and if the tenant stays on, it is the tribunal that ends the tenancy, not the landlord. Issuing a breach notice and then overriding it with a demand to be out in two days gave the tenants a compensation claim regardless of what they had done. The decision also shows that provocation, real or claimed, does not make self-help lawful.

If you are in a similar position as a tenant, the decision shows two things about how compensation is worked out. Costs you can prove with a receipt or invoice are the ones that count, and the claim for $2,444.20 failed only because nothing supported it. And compensation puts you back where you would have been, not better off, so the rent you would have been paying anyway comes off the top, and a stay that cost less than your rent produces no loss at all.

In disputes like this, most people start with a written notice or demand that sets out the breach, what they want fixed and by when, and keep a record of it, before any application to the tribunal is filed.

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

Source: O'Meara v Roberts [2026] QCATA 80 (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.