Pet refusal with no legal ground fails: tenants may keep dog, cat and bearded dragon (SACAT, 2026)

What happened

The tenants rented a house in South Australia under a residential tenancy agreement. They kept three animals: a tan female Staffordshire Terrier cross dog, a white purebred ragdoll cat, and a bearded dragon lizard.

On or about 26 March 2026 the tenants served a separate "Application for approval to keep a pet on rental premises" on the landlord for each animal. The Tribunal found the applications were in the appropriate form, that is, the form determined by the Commissioner as the Act requires.

On 7 April 2026 the landlord's agent served a "Notice of response to pet application" for each pet. Each notice purported to refuse the application. The notices were in writing, as the Act requires, and they did give reasons. But none of the notices set out a "ground" for refusal from the list in the Act. At the hearing the agent confirmed under affirmation that no ground was stated because no ground in the Act applied to this situation.

The tenants gave evidence of the close personal affection they and their children had for each animal, and of important bonds between the children and the animals that help the children manage their special needs. The Tribunal also noted that the landlord had served a Form 5 breach notice on 23 March 2026 on the basis that the tenants were housing unapproved pets, but had not tried to enforce it.

What each side wanted

The tenants applied to the Tribunal for a determination permitting them to keep the three pets at the premises, on the basis that the landlord's refusal notices were not valid. The landlord, represented at the hearing by an agent from Century 21 Southern, argued that the recent changes to the pet laws had placed greater restrictions on property owners and exposed properties to potentially greater damage. The tenants also said a former property manager had given verbal approval for the pets back in 2023.

What the tribunal decided

The Tribunal allowed the application. It ordered that the tenants may keep the pets referred to in the applications on the tenanted premises.

It also ordered that, on or before 5:00pm on Wednesday 15 July 2026, the tenants must give the landlord recent identifying photos and information setting out the correct name, registration details where applicable, description and relevant medical details of all the pets referred to in the applications, for example confirmation of desexing.

No money was claimed or ordered. Because the landlord had not proposed any conditions, the Tribunal simply ordered that the pets are permitted. It noted the parties had discussed the matter amicably at the hearing and seemed open to agreeing conditions, which they could do by varying the tenancy agreement under section 49(4) of the Act, or the landlord could impose a condition under the process in section 66C(7). Any condition, agreed or imposed, must be consistent with sections 66C(8) to (11) or it will be void.

Why the tribunal decided it that way

Section 66C of the Residential Tenancies Act 1995 (SA) governs pets in rental properties. A tenant may apply to the landlord or the agent for approval, using the form determined by the Commissioner. Within 14 days the landlord or agent must give the tenant a written notice saying whether the application is approved or refused, any conditions of approval, and, if refused, both the grounds for the refusal and the reasons the landlord believes those grounds apply.

The Tribunal first had to decide whether the three animals were "pets" needing approval. The Act does not define the word. The Member said Parliament deliberately left it undefined so each case could be decided on its own facts, so the ordinary dictionary meaning applied: any domesticated or tamed animal that is cared for affectionately. Cats, dogs and bearded dragons can all be tamed and kept as companion animals, so all three were pets requiring approval under section 66C.

A landlord can only refuse on one or more of the grounds listed in section 66D. Those grounds include too many animals for the premises, premises unsuitable because of a lack of fencing or open space, an unacceptable risk to someone's health or safety, breaking a law or a by-law or rule applying to the premises, the tenant not agreeing to reasonable proposed conditions, the animal not being a pet, a breach of a moveable dwelling licence condition, or any other ground set by regulation. Here the notices gave reasons but no section 66D ground. The Member held that naming a valid ground is a strict statutory requirement and a necessary precondition to refusing at all: where an Act says a party "must" do something, the party has to do it. It was not a minor slip that could be excused as an irregularity under section 83 of the Act or section 52 of the Legislation Interpretation Act 2021.

Section 66C(5) then decided the outcome. If a landlord or agent fails to give a written notice in time, or gives a notice that does not comply with section 66C(4), the landlord is taken to have given approval to keep the pet. The notices did not comply, so they were of no effect, the refusals were invalid and approval was taken to have been given. The Member answered the landlord's complaint about the new laws by saying Parliament is empowered to legislate about land. The Tribunal did not need to decide whether a former property manager had verbally approved the pets in 2023, though it noted the Act requires variations of a tenancy agreement to be in writing and signed by both parties under section 49(4). The Tribunal also reminded the tenants that approval to keep pets does not change their obligation to keep all areas of the property in a reasonable, reasonably clean and undamaged condition under their tenancy agreement.

What this means if you are in a similar position

This decision shows how closely South Australian pet-approval notices are read. If you are a renter in a similar position, the decision shows that the form of the paperwork matters on both sides: the tenant's application has to be in the form determined by the Commissioner, and a landlord's refusal has to name at least one of the grounds in section 66D of the Residential Tenancies Act 1995 and explain why that ground applies. A notice that gives only reasons, or that arrives late, can be treated as no refusal at all, with the result that approval is taken to have been given.

The decision also shows what approval does not do. It does not relieve a renter of the duty to keep the property clean and undamaged, and a landlord can still impose or vary reasonable conditions through the process in the Act, or the parties can agree conditions by a written, signed variation of the tenancy agreement. A separate breach notice about unapproved pets was on foot in this case and the Tribunal made no findings about it, because the landlord had not tried to enforce it.

In disputes of this kind most people start with the written request to the landlord or agent, in the form the law requires, setting out the animal and the household's circumstances, and keeping a copy and the date it was served. If the reply does not come, or does not comply with the Act, an application to the tribunal is the next stage.

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

Source: Dutton & Anor v Samuel & Anor [2026] SACAT 60 (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.