Landlord’s refusal of a pet dog found unreasonable, tenants allowed a dog under 15kg (TASCAT, 2026)

What happened

The tenants had rented the property since August 2024, and the lease had been renewed several times. The current lease ran to 3 September 2026 and was not going to be renewed, because the landlords intended to move back in and live there themselves. The home was built in the 1950s, bought by the landlords in 2023, and had a main three-bedroom dwelling, a deck and a small joined flat with a loft bedroom. The land was between about 680 and 860 square metres and the whole perimeter was fenced.

The tenants asked the landlords in writing for consent to keep a dog. They did not own a dog yet. They wanted to buy a small dog, preferably a Blue Staffordshire Terrier aged about one to one and a half years, from a registered breeder in Tasmania, and had already made enquiries with breeders who had dogs available in southern Tasmania. An earlier request during the first lease period had also been refused.

The landlords refused consent and applied to the Tribunal. Their concern was the garden, which had been landscaped by the previous owner and was the main reason they bought the place. They put in a slideshow of 50 photographs of the gardens and exterior. One landlord said plants covered every square inch of soil around the home, there was no fence stopping a dog getting into the garden, and a dog would inevitably patrol, dig, roll on ground cover, defecate or urinate there, because there was nowhere else for it to go. He said plant deaths might not show up until months later and could reduce the value of the property by more than the bond would cover. A gardener was engaged for autumn and spring, but it was agreed he had not attended for 11 months because he had been unwell, and that this had been passed on to the tenants through the real estate agent.

One tenant gave evidence that they had grown up around dogs, that her mother had been a dog trainer for more than 30 years, that she had attended obedience classes weekly and had fostered Staffordshire Terriers, and that she would train any dog they bought, including toilet training it to one spot on turf placed near an empty space in the driveway. The dog would be kept mainly inside, with her partner working from home five days a week, and exercised at nearby parks, reserves and beaches. They also said they wanted a dog as a deterrent, after three attempted break-ins, one last year and two in April 2026.

What each side wanted

The landlords asked the Tribunal to find that their refusal of consent was reasonable, essentially on the ground that a dog would damage the established garden beyond fair wear and tear and would reduce the value of the property. The tenants asked to be allowed to keep the dog they intended to buy, pointing to their experience with dogs, their commitment to train it, the fact it would mostly be indoors and exercised off the property, and their wish for a deterrent after repeated break-in attempts. Both sides represented themselves.

What the tribunal decided

The Senior Member determined that the landlords' refusal to give written consent to the keeping of a dog was not on reasonable grounds.

The order made was that the tenants "may keep a dog, as per the conditions below", with the stated condition that "the dog is to be a small to medium dog not exceeding 15 kilograms". Under the Act, once such an order is made, the landlords are taken to have given written consent to the keeping of the pet. No money was claimed or ordered.

Why the tribunal decided it that way

Keeping pets in Tasmanian rentals is now dealt with in Part 3C of the Residential Tenancy Act 1997, inserted by the Residential Tenancy Amendment (Pets) Act 2025 and in force from 20 March 2026. A dog is a pet under section 36Q. Section 36R says a tenant may keep pets specified in a written consent from the owner, and that a tenant who wants a pet is to ask for that consent in writing. Section 36S requires the owner to consent or refuse within 14 days, and if they refuse, to give written notice and apply to the Tribunal. Section 36S(2) says an owner must not unreasonably refuse. Section 36U lets the Tribunal decide whether the refusal was on reasonable grounds and, if not, order that the tenant may keep the pet, with conditions.

The Senior Member first dealt with the fact that the tenants did not yet own a dog. Reading the words of sections 36R and 36U(2)(a), she held that a tenant does not have to already own the pet when the request is made. But the request must be more than speculative: details such as breed, size and age help the Tribunal judge whether a refusal is reasonable and help it set sensible conditions. Here the tenants could give those details.

On what makes a refusal unreasonable, section 36V(1) lists grounds the Tribunal may take into account, including whether keeping the pet "would" cause a nuisance, cause damage that is more than reasonable wear and tear, or pose an unacceptable safety risk. Following an earlier TASCAT decision, the Senior Member started from the position the Act sets up: a tenant may keep a pet unless there is a reasonable reason to refuse. She also noted that "would" is a stronger word than "might" or "could": it points to an expected consequence, not a possible one, and the damage ground requires damage beyond reasonable wear and tear.

Applying that, she accepted the landlords genuinely loved the garden and wanted it kept as it was, and treated the end of the lease and the tenants' wish for a deterrent as beside the point under the legislation. The deciding factor was evidence. The landlords raised genuine concern and speculation about what a dog could do, but submitted no evidence that such damage was probable, or that it would go beyond reasonable wear and tear. Weight was given to the tenants' experience with dogs, the mother's training background, the undertaking to train the dog, and the fact it would seldom be left alone at the property. On all the evidence she was not satisfied that a small to medium dog of that breed would cause damage beyond reasonable wear and tear, or produce any of the effects listed in section 36V(1)(a).

What this means if you are in a similar position

If you are in a similar position, this decision shows how the Tasmanian pet rules are being applied in practice. The starting point in the Act is that a tenant may keep a pet, and a landlord who refuses has to be able to point to a reasonable ground, then give written notice and take the matter to the Tribunal within the time the Act sets. The word used in the damage ground is "would", so the question is what is expected to happen with the particular animal, not what could conceivably happen.

It also shows that strong feelings about a property, and photographs of it, are not the same thing as evidence of likely damage. The landlords here had 50 photographs of the garden and a clear explanation of their fears, and still lost, because nothing before the Tribunal showed that damage beyond reasonable wear and tear was probable. On the other side, concrete detail carried weight: the breed, size and age of the intended dog, past experience with that breed, training background and a specific plan for where the dog would toilet and how it would be exercised. The decision also confirms a tenant does not have to buy the animal first, provided the request is specific rather than speculative.

In this kind of dispute, most people start in writing: a tenant puts the pet request to the landlord or agent in writing with the details of the animal, and a landlord who wants to refuse replies in writing with the reasons, because the Act requires written notice and then an application to the Tribunal if consent is refused. The tribunal application is the formal next step once the written exchange has not resolved it.

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

Source: Rhodes v Griffiths [2026] TASCAT 64 (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.