Room occupancy agreements declared void and misleading, but no refund or compensation ordered (ACAT, 2026)

What happened

The occupant lived in the "Third Room" of a Canberra property under a series of documents called "Occupancy Agreements" with LiveComfy Real Estate Pty Ltd. All of them covered the period from 11 May 2023 to 12 July 2025. The company supplied the room furnished, with utilities and cleaning, and the occupant paid the agreed weekly fee. He moved out before the last fixed term ended.

The property was not leased to the company. The company's director had personally signed a residential tenancy agreement with the property owners on 4 May 2023. The owners had approved "subletting", but the company was not a party to that lease and was not named in it.

The original tribunal ordered the occupant to pay the company $1,214 in "unpaid rent" for leaving early. He appealed. In an earlier appeal decision, Williams v LiveComfy Real Estate Pty Ltd [2026] ACAT 31, the Appeal Tribunal found that the company never had power to enter into agreements about the property. It held that the occupancy agreements were void from the outset and set aside the $1,214 order. Separately, in March 2025 the parties had signed a confidentiality agreement. Under it, the company paid the occupant $2,850 and he gave up claims about earlier problems with how the agreements had been carried out.

This decision deals with the further orders that should follow from that finding. The hearing took place on 1 July 2026. At that hearing the director produced, for the first time, the rental application he had given the owners' agents. It described the company as a "subletting business". It also listed the director as the current tenant of five other ACT properties.

What each side wanted

The occupant asked for 13 injunctions against the company. An injunction is a court order requiring someone to do, or stop doing, something. He also asked for broad declarations about how the company dealt with occupants generally. He claimed compensation on 15 grounds, including return of all rent paid, distress and anxiety, privacy and information breaches, misleading "Trust Account Receipts", loss of quiet enjoyment, rent increase demands, his time and expense, loss of opportunity and aggravated damages. He also asked for referrals to regulators, including the Australian Federal Police. The company argued that no further orders were needed because "the commercial ledger is square".

What the tribunal decided

The Tribunal declared that each of the occupancy agreements between the occupant and the company for the "Third Room" between 11 May 2023 and 12 July 2025 "was void from the outset, on the basis that LiveComfy never had any power to enter contracts in respect of the Premises". It also declared that, by representing to the occupant that it had power to enter into an occupancy agreement for the premises, the company "engaged in misleading conduct".

The rest of the appeal was dismissed. No money was ordered to be paid in this decision. The reasons state that the occupant was entitled to reimbursement of his ACAT filing fees, but the published orders do not contain a separate order for this. The Tribunal ordered that copies of both appeal decisions be given to Access Canberra and the Australian Taxation Office.

Why the tribunal decided it that way

On injunctions, the Tribunal said the appeal concerned only the arrangement between this occupant and the company. It was not a suitable way to force the company to keep or hand over records, or to change its conduct, in dealings with people who were not part of the case. For the same reason, it refused the broad declarations about other occupants, because there was no evidence those arrangements were set up the same way. It did make a narrower declaration limited to the occupant's own dealings. By offering him occupancy agreements, the company represented that it had power to do so, and it did not. The company was not a party to the lease, and the owners' approval of "subletting" was not the same as allowing a separate business to grant occupancy rights. Any unwritten transfer of the lease to the company was also void. The owners had approved only subletting. Clause 72 of the standard tenancy terms in Schedule 1 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 bars assignment or subletting without the lessor's written consent. Recognising such a transfer would also be against public policy.

The Tribunal found no basis for compensation. The occupant entered each agreement freely and received exactly what he bargained for. Both sides treated the agreements as valid until after he had moved out. A refund of rent would be restitution, which is a discretionary remedy given only where it would otherwise be unfair. It was not unfair here, partly because the director could lawfully have sublet the room to him. The occupant was also already $1,214 better off because the unpaid rent order had been set aside, and he had received $2,850 under the confidentiality agreement. The Tribunal's power in section 83(1)(d) of the Act to award compensation for breach of a tenancy or occupancy agreement did not apply, because there was no valid agreement. Damages for misleading conduct under the Australian Consumer Law require actual loss, and none was shown. Nominal damages, meaning a small symbolic sum, were not available. The claims for distress, privacy breaches, coercive rent demands, loss of opportunity and aggravated damages were not proven. ACAT is also a no-costs jurisdiction, so the occupant's time and expense were not recoverable beyond his filing fees.

The Tribunal refused to refer the receipts to police. It accepted that they contained errors and were issued in a "slipshod" way, but found they were not evidence of criminal fraud. However, the evidence as a whole, including the director's own rental application, strongly suggested a business model used across other ACT properties. Under that model, the director personally leases a property and the company then signs occupancy agreements with individual occupants. If those arrangements were the same, the head leases may not be true residential tenancy agreements, the occupancy agreements may be void, and the conduct may be systematically misleading. The Tribunal also identified possible GST and income tax questions. For these reasons it sent its reasons to Access Canberra and the Australian Taxation Office.

The Tribunal admitted the late rental application only to help decide what further orders to make. It said the document would not have changed its earlier finding that the agreements were void. Knowing that a property would be "sublet" is not the same as authorising a separate business to grant occupancy agreements.

What this means if you are in a similar position

This decision shows that winning a finding that an agreement was void does not automatically lead to a refund or compensation. Here, the Tribunal looked at whether the occupant had actually lost anything. Because he paid for and received the accommodation he agreed to, it found he had not. It also shows that a declaration made in a dispute between two parties will usually be limited to their own dealings, not the other party's business in general.

If you are in a similar position, the decision illustrates that the Tribunal expects evidence of a specific financial or other loss before it will order compensation. Statements about distress or inconvenience, without more, may not be enough. It also shows the Tribunal can pass its reasons to regulators where the evidence suggests a wider pattern, even when it refuses broad orders itself.

Most people in a rental or occupancy dispute start by setting out their claim in a written demand or notice to the other party. They then apply to the Tribunal if the matter is not resolved.

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

Source: WILLIAMS v LIVECOMFY REAL ESTATE PTY LTD ACN 656 799 012 (No 2) (Appeal) [2026] ACAT 59 (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.