Landlords keep the full $2,577 bond after floor damage and a dishwasher left behind (ACAT, 2026)

What happened

The tenancy was for a house in a Canberra suburb and ended in September 2025. During the tenancy the tenant was a cultural attaché with the Embassy of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The bond held by ACT Rental Bonds was $2,577.52. The rent was $3,000 a month and the tribunal noted the property was around 20 years old, first leased in 2016, with floorboards that had never been replaced.

When the tenancy ended, the exit condition report recorded that the floor was "gapping and moving" with the timber edging lifting. The damage was in one area beside the kitchen bench, where a dishwasher had been installed, and ran into the lounge and dining area. A flooring company, Capital Floors, told the agent in December 2025 that the original product was no longer available so the whole floor would have to be replaced, and quoted $20,781. It suggested, without being certain, that the cause was water, either a dishwasher leak or water spilled and not wiped up. A second company quoted $39,561.25. Photographs taken at a routine inspection in May 2025 showed the floor undamaged at that time.

There was also an invoice from GHBILT Constructions dated 11 December 2025 for $389, covering the removal and disposal of various items, including the dishwasher, and a repair to a drawer in the ensuite vanity.

The agent told the tribunal that earlier tenants, also from the embassy, had installed the dishwasher, and that at the start of this tenancy it was agreed the dishwasher was the tenant's. The ingoing condition report carried a note that all items at the property were to be removed by the tenant at the end of the tenancy. The tenant's accreditation as a diplomatic agent in Australia ended on 31 December 2025, and the embassy told the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade on 9 January 2026 that he had left the country.

What each side wanted

The landlords claimed compensation equal to the whole bond: $2,188.52 for the floorboards and $389 for the removal work, saying the tenant had breached clause 64 of the standard residential tenancy terms, which requires a tenant to leave the premises in substantially the same condition as at the start, fair wear and tear excepted. The tenant, represented by an officer of the embassy, denied causing the floor damage and said the dishwasher came with the property, pointing to the ingoing report photographs of the dishwasher and the exit report note that it needed cleaning. He argued the damage was not his doing: a dishwasher leak would have run somewhere else, laminated timber flooring is meant to be waterproof so any water damage was a manufacturing failure, or else the sun and the way the boards were laid caused them to expand and lift, which would be fair wear and tear. In the alternative he argued that the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act 1967 (Cth) made him immune from the tribunal's residential tenancies jurisdiction, while at the same time asking for the bond to be released to him.

What the tribunal decided

The tribunal made one order: ACT Rental Bonds, on behalf of the Territory, is directed to release the bond of $2,577.52 to the applicants.

In its reasons the tribunal ordered the tenant to pay $2,188.52 to the landlords for the floorboards, and found the landlords entitled to be compensated for the full GHBILT Constructions invoice of $389. Together those figures make up the whole bond. The landlords had claimed $2,091.07 for the floor in their application; the tribunal corrected that figure to $2,188.52 because it understood the claim to be for the entire bond, and that was the amount left after the $389 invoice.

Why the tribunal decided it that way

The tribunal dealt with the immunity argument first, because it could have ended the case. It accepted that the Act does give a person with diplomatic status immunity from its residential tenancies jurisdiction, that the tenant had that status during the tenancy, and that a diplomatic identity card is only evidence of accreditation, not the source of the immunity. But on advice from the Protocol Branch of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the tenant's accreditation had ended and he no longer held diplomatic status.

What remains for a former diplomat is "residual" immunity under article 39(2) of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which is part of the Act. That article keeps immunity alive only for acts performed in the exercise of the person's functions as a member of the mission. Following Federal Court and United Kingdom Supreme Court decisions on former diplomats sued by domestic workers, the tribunal held that living in a rented house in Canberra is not the exercise of official embassy functions, so no residual immunity applied and the tenant was subject to the tribunal's jurisdiction.

On the dishwasher, the tribunal agreed that a dishwasher in a rental is usually supplied with the property, and that the note in the ingoing report about removing "all items" was vague. But those points were circumstantial, the note did at least point to the dishwasher being an extra item the tenant was responsible for, and the landlords' clear recollection, even though it came through the agent as second-hand evidence, outweighed them. The tribunal found the dishwasher was the tenant's property and had to be removed at the end of the tenancy.

On the floor, the question was cause. "Fair wear and tear" means damage from natural causes such as sun, wind and rain, or from the ordinary and unintentional incidents of living in a place; it does not cover intentional or careless damage. Comparing the inspection photographs with the exit photographs, and taking account of the flooring company's view, the tribunal found the damage came from water, concentrated in one spot next to the kitchen bench, and was not fair wear and tear under term 64(b). It added that it did not matter who owned the dishwasher, because any leak went unreported, contrary to term 55(2). On the amount, the tribunal said damaged floorboards must be valued with their age and depreciation in mind, not simply at replacement cost. It accepted the lower quote of about $20,000 for replacement and found a claim of just over 10 per cent of that figure reasonable.

What this means if you are in a similar position

If you are in a similar position as a landlord or a tenant, this decision shows how a bond claim for damage is actually tested. The tribunal did not accept the quotes at face value: it asked who or what caused the damage, whether it was simply the floor ageing, and then reduced a $20,000 replacement quote to about 10 per cent of that figure because the boards were already roughly 20 years old. Condition reports and dated inspection photographs did most of the work on both sides, and a vague note in an ingoing report about removing "all items" was treated as weak but not worthless evidence.

It also shows two narrower points. Appliances that are not plainly part of the property can be treated as the tenant's, so a clear written record at the start of who owns a dishwasher, air conditioner or similar item avoids a fight at the end. And a problem such as a suspected leak is meant to be reported; failing to report it mattered to the tribunal regardless of who owned the appliance.

On immunity, the decision shows that a former diplomat keeps only the narrow residual immunity for official acts. Renting and living in a home is not an official act, so the tribunal can still hear a tenancy dispute after the person's posting ends. In this kind of dispute most people start with an itemised written claim against the bond, setting out each cost with the condition reports, photographs and quotes attached, and only apply to the tribunal if that is refused or ignored.

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

Source: ZIN & ANOR v ALKAHTANI (Residential Tenancies) [2026] ACAT 47 (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.