Order for a landlord to repay $12,609.50 for air-conditioners set aside on appeal (QCAT, 2026)

What happened

A two-page written "General tenancy agreement" for a property at Cannonvale was signed on 2 October 2024. It named the landlord as lessor and three tenants, one of which was a company. The term ran from 2 December 2024 to 1 December 2025, and a bond of $10,000 was held by the Residential Tenancies Authority. The parties disagreed about what kind of agreement it was: the tenant said it was a residential tenancy agreement under the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld), and the landlord said it was commercial. The adjudicator who heard the case found it was not a residential tenancy agreement, so it had to be enforced as a strict contract. That finding was not challenged on appeal.

After moving in, the tenant said the ducted air-conditioning did not work and the landlord would not repair it. The tenant bought and had installed three split system air-conditioners. Invoices dated in December 2024 totalled $12,609.50 – $11,429.50 for the units and $1,180.00 for installation work – and were issued to the company tenant. On 18 February 2025 the tenant sent the landlord an email asking him to confirm, "as just agreed over the phone", that the roughly $13,000 paid for air-conditioners would be reimbursed in full at the end of the tenancy, on the condition that the tenant saw out the whole 12-month lease. The same email said that if the tenant ended the lease early, the landlord would not have to reimburse anything and the tenant would forfeit the bond. The tenancy in fact ended on 17 August 2025, which both sides accepted had been agreed.

There were three separate minor civil dispute applications and a counter-application, all heard together on 7 October 2025. The tenant had deliberately filed two applications of up to $25,000 each because his total claims were above the $25,000 limit for minor civil disputes. His representative said so at the hearing. The appeal tribunal noted that similar approaches have been described as an abuse of process, but did not take the point further because the adjudicator had not dealt with it and the second application had been dismissed.

The adjudicator gave short oral reasons. He ordered the landlord to pay the tenant $12,609.50 within 14 days for the air-conditioners, ordered the Residential Tenancies Authority to pay the whole $10,000 bond to the tenant and nothing to the landlord, dismissed the tenant's second application, and dismissed the landlord's claims. The landlord then applied for leave to appeal.

What each side wanted

In his first application the tenant claimed $12,609.50 to be repaid for the air-conditioning, the whole of the $10,000 bond, and $2,390.50 for electricity; his second application claimed a further $16,292.65 and $392.40 described as receipts and $8,314.95 for card charges said to have been taken without consent. The landlord claimed $7,700.00 to repair a damaged marble bed head, $5,148.00 for cleaning, $2,152.00 as a capped loss of rent after early termination, and the $10,000 bond, which he said the tenant had promised to forfeit in the 18 February email. On appeal the landlord argued that the adjudicator denied him procedural fairness by not having proper regard to his evidence, and that the adjudicator should have dismissed the air-conditioning claim because the 18 February email showed there was no agreement to reimburse once the tenant left early.

What the tribunal decided

The appeal tribunal refused leave to appeal in relation to the landlord's own application (proceeding Q14996-25).

In relation to the tenant's first application (Q13274-25), it granted leave to appeal against the order that the landlord pay the tenant $12,609.50 within 14 days, refused leave on everything else in that application, allowed the appeal, set the $12,609.50 order aside, and returned the matter to a differently constituted Tribunal for reconsideration only of the tenant's claim for $12,609.50 as reimbursement of the cost of the air-conditioning.

The tenant's application for miscellaneous matters filed on 1 May 2026, which asked for the appeal to be dismissed, was dismissed. The order that the Residential Tenancies Authority pay the $10,000 bond to the tenant was left standing, because leave to appeal on the bond was refused.

Why the tribunal decided it that way

An appeal against a minor civil dispute decision can only be brought with the appeal tribunal's leave, under section 142 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld). Leave is normally given only where there is a reasonable argument that the decision was affected by error and an appeal is needed to correct a substantial injustice, or where the appeal raises a question of general importance. There is no automatic right of appeal, because minor civil disputes are meant to be dealt with simply, quickly, cheaply and finally.

On the air-conditioning, the appeal tribunal held that the adjudicator's reasons were not adequate, and that a failure to give sufficient reasons is itself an error of law. The adjudicator had said only that he found there was an agreement about the installation and that $12,600 should be paid. The reasons did not say whether the agreement was oral or written, when it was made, what its terms were, or what the tenant gave in return for the promise. They also said nothing about the 18 February email, even though the landlord relied on it directly and it was the only document pointing to a promise. The appeal tribunal observed that the email read as though any promise was made on 18 February 2025 – months after the air-conditioners were bought – and that on its face the promise to reimburse was conditional on the tenant staying for the whole 12 months, which did not happen. It also noted a real question about whether the tenant gave anything of value in return for a promise made after the units had already been paid for. Because the losing party was left without knowing why he lost, and because the gaps made an appeal hard to run, this was both a denial of procedural fairness and a failure to give adequate reasons. The appeal tribunal did not decide who should win that claim; it sent it back under sections 146(1)(c) and (d) to be reheard by a different member.

On the bond, the appeal tribunal agreed the reasons were inadequate, but refused leave because no substantial injustice followed. The landlord's case rested on the sentence in the tenant's email saying he would forfeit the bond. That was a one-sided promise. Every contract needs something given in exchange, and the appeal tribunal could not identify anything the landlord gave in return for that promise, nor any claim that the landlord had acted to his own detriment in reliance on it. So the promise was not enforceable and the bond outcome would not have changed.

On the landlord's own claims, the appeal tribunal found his complaints were really disagreement with the findings of fact. Rent had been paid to 17 August 2025 and the landlord himself accepted that date had been agreed, so there was no arguable claim for rent after it. For the cleaning and the damaged bed head, the landlord carried the onus of proving the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy and the reasonable cost of putting it back; no entry condition report had been given, the tenants gave evidence the property was dirty and poorly maintained when they arrived, and the landlord's own evidence was that the repair cost had not been worked out. It was open to the adjudicator to dismiss those claims. The appeal tribunal also held that it could not look at fresh evidence on an appeal limited to questions of law, and that neither party had shown the new material would probably have changed the result. The published copy stops part-way through the last line of the orders, which are set out in full at the start of the decision.

What this means if you are in a similar position

If you are in a similar position, this decision shows how much weight a tribunal puts on reasons that actually engage with the key document. A short conclusion that "there was an agreement" is not enough when the parties disagree about whether a promise was made, when it was made, what conditions came with it and what each side gave in return. It also shows that a promise made after the money has already been spent can raise a question about whether anything was given in exchange for it, and that a one-sided promise – like an offer to forfeit a bond – is not automatically enforceable by the other side.

The decision also shows two practical things about evidence. Where the condition of a property is in dispute, the party claiming cleaning or damage costs has to prove both the change in condition and the reasonable cost of fixing it, and the absence of an entry condition report can make that very hard. And a successful appeal does not always mean money changes hands: here the order was wiped out and the claim sent back to be heard again, so the dispute about the air-conditioning was still live.

It is worth noting that a tribunal will look closely at claims split across two applications to get around a money limit. In disputes of this kind, most people start with a written demand or notice that sets out exactly what they say was agreed, what they are owed and by when, attaching the emails or invoices they rely on, and only lodge a tribunal application if that does not resolve it.

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

Source: Hegarty v Allen [2026] QCATA 138 (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.