Owner’s refusal of a tenant’s cat ruled unreasonable, tribunal allows the pet to stay (TASCAT, 2026)

What happened

The landlord owns a stand-alone three-bedroom suburban house in Tasmania that she rents out. The bedrooms are carpeted; the rest of the house has timber floorboards and vinyl. Work was done on the property between November 2021 and March 2022, which the landlord said totalled more than $34,000, with flooring and carpet alone over $6,000. Receipts covered cleaning (including washing the bathroom floor with vinegar to discourage mould and removing nicotine stains), sanding windows, architraves, doors and floorboards, removing wallpaper, painting, lining walls with ply sheeting, cement sheeting to fix wall damage, roller blinds, replacing damaged Laminex in the kitchen, new flooring and polishing the floorboards. The house was built by the landlord's grandfather.

The tenant asked the landlord in writing for consent to keep a cat she wished to adopt from a local cat shelter. The cat is a male domestic short hair, estimated by a vet to be about two years old, microchipped, indoor only and litter trained. The parties agreed the cat met the definition of a "pet" in the Residential Tenancy Act 1997 (Tas). The landlord refused consent, and on 14 April 2026 applied to the Tribunal for a decision on whether that refusal was unreasonable, as the Act requires an owner who refuses to do.

The landlord did not attend the hearing. She was represented by her property agent, who said she had no submissions on s 36V (the section listing the grounds the Tribunal may take into account) and had not been in contact with the landlord for the past week and a half. The landlord's written reasons, forwarded earlier, said the tenant had not shown practical or enforceable measures to prevent scratching or marking of floorboards, skirting boards, doors, cabinetry or window frames, the spread of hair or allergens, or soiling and odour damage, and that she saw a genuine and foreseeable risk of damage.

The tenant represented herself. She said she would accept full financial responsibility for any damage beyond fair wear and tear, that the three carpeted bedrooms each have a door that can be closed, and that the hallway is floorboards with lino through the rest of the house. She said she would provide scratching posts and toys, train the cat and discourage scratching, trim its claws regularly, keep the litter tray clean in the lino-floored laundry with a mat underneath, and buy a deterrent spray. She also noted her lease already required her to fumigate and steam clean the carpets when she leaves. A character reference from her partner, describing her as fastidiously clean and disciplined, was not disputed.

What each side wanted

The landlord argued her refusal was on reasonable grounds because of the 2022 renovations, the risk that a cat would scratch windowsills and other finishes, the spread of hair and allergens, possible soiling and odour, and the deep sentimental value of a house built by her grandfather. She said a shelter reference could not be relied on because animals behave differently in a new home, that scratching is natural for cats and cannot be fully prevented, and that no further conditions would address her concerns. The tenant asked to be allowed to keep the cat, offering a list of practical steps to limit damage and accepting financial responsibility for anything beyond fair wear and tear.

What the tribunal decided

The Tribunal determined that the landlord's refusal to give consent to the keeping of the pet was not on reasonable grounds.

The order made on 21 May 2026 was: "In accordance with s 36U(2)(a) of the Residential Tenancy Act 1997, that [the tenant] may keep the pet specified (Celeriac) in their request made under s 36R(2)." No money was ordered to be paid by either party. Reasons were issued on 30 June 2026.

Why the tribunal decided it that way

The member started with the structure of the Act. Section 36R(1) says a tenant may keep exempt animals and any pet specified in a written consent from the owner, so the starting presumption is that a tenant is entitled to keep a pet. Section 36R(2) requires the tenant to ask for written consent. Section 36S(1) requires the owner to give or refuse consent within 14 days, and if the owner refuses, to give the tenant written notice and apply to the Tribunal. Section 36S(2) says an owner must not unreasonably refuse. Section 36U gives the Tribunal power to decide whether a refusal was on reasonable grounds, and s 36V lists grounds it may take into account, including nuisance, damage beyond reasonable wear and tear, risks to safety, risks to the welfare of animals, conservation covenants or programs, and any other ground the Tribunal considers reasonable.

On damage, the member said the landlord was simply wrong to say the Act lets an owner refuse where there is a "genuine and foreseeable risk of damage" – there is no such provision. Quoting the Second Reading speech, the member noted Parliament intended to let renters have a pet as a right, while leaving the tenant's existing obligation (under s 53) to fix damage beyond reasonable wear and tear and return the property to its original condition, with a bond claim available if they do not. Parliament was therefore aware that pets can cause damage. The mere potential for damage cannot be a barrier, because that possibility exists with every pet. The member found the refusal on that basis "plainly unreasonable", and said there was no evidence the cat would cause damage beyond reasonable wear and tear, particularly given the steps the tenant said she would take.

On the condition of the property, the member was not satisfied it is reasonable to refuse a pet because a home is in good condition or was recently renovated: Parliament intended the right to apply to all renters, not only those in older or unrenovated homes. On sentimental value, the member accepted the landlord's connection to a house built by her grandfather was understandable, but noted the 2022 works had themselves involved sanding and replacing fixtures and fittings, so it was difficult to see how repairs arising from a cat would differ materially. An intangible emotional attachment to a rented property did not override the right Parliament had enacted. On allergens, there was no evidence the landlord had a pet allergy, no explanation of how a pet in a home she does not live in would affect her, and no evidence allergens would remain after the tenant completed her end-of-lease cleaning obligations.

What this means if you are in a similar position

This decision shows how Tasmania's pet rules are applied in practice. The starting point is that a tenant may keep a pet with the owner's written consent, the owner has 14 days to give or refuse consent, and an owner who refuses must notify the tenant in writing and take the question to the Tribunal. The Tribunal then decides whether the refusal was on reasonable grounds, using the list in s 36V as a guide.

If you are in a similar position, as an owner or as a tenant, the decision shows that general worries are treated differently from evidence. A possible or hypothetical risk of damage was not enough, because every pet carries that possibility and the tenant remains liable for damage beyond reasonable wear and tear anyway. A recent renovation, a well-kept home and a personal attachment to the property did not make the refusal reasonable, and a concern about allergens went nowhere without any evidence behind it. It also matters who turns up: the owner did not attend, and her agent had no submissions on the section that sets out the relevant grounds.

In disputes of this kind, the step most people take first is to put the request or the refusal in writing, with the specific reasons and any conditions offered, so both sides know exactly what is in issue. If the matter is not resolved at that point, the Act requires the question to go to the Tribunal for a decision.

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

Source: Pearce v Kenna [2026] TASCAT 89 (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.