Student sublet without the owner’s consent: head tenant ordered to repay $285.46 (ACAT, 2026)

What happened

Both people in this dispute were international students at the Australian National University. In November 2025 one of them let his apartment to the other. On 6 November 2025 the occupier paid 19,446 RMB, which covered 105 days at 185.2 RMB per day, and moved in the same day.

On 20 November 2025 the occupier found out his security access card was being cancelled. The person who had let him the apartment confirmed he would not be able to get in once the card was cancelled, and the occupier moved out later that day. He had lived there for 15 days, worth 2,778 RMB.

The card was cancelled because the person letting the apartment was himself only a tenant of it. He had purported to sublet it to the occupier without the written consent of his own lessor. A "sublet" is where a tenant rents out the place, or part of it, to someone else.

By 22 November 2025 he had refunded 15,800 RMB, leaving 868 RMB of advance rent unpaid. At the agreed exchange rate for 21 November 2025 (1 RMB = 0.2184 AUD) that came to $189.57. Both parties used an interpreter in the tribunal proceedings.

What each side wanted

The occupier applied to ACAT for the balance of the rent he had paid in advance, and also claimed $1,300 compensation for failing a university exam, which he put down to the stress of having to find somewhere else to live with no notice. He withdrew the compensation claim before final orders were made because he was worried the other party would leave Australia before the case finished. The other party filed a counterclaim, saying he was entitled to keep the outstanding rent to cover cleaning costs.

What the tribunal decided

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the applicant $285.46, made up of $189.57 as a refund of "rent", $5.89 in interest, and the $90 tribunal filing fee. The whole amount was to be paid by 8 May 2026.

The respondent's counterclaim for cleaning costs was dismissed. The compensation claim of $1,300 was not decided, because it had been withdrawn.

Why the tribunal decided it that way

On the money claim, the Tribunal found the unused advance rent was simply a debt. The debt arose on 21 November 2025, the day after the occupier moved out, and interest to the hearing date was calculated at the pre-judgment interest rate of 7.60%, giving $5.89.

The more important point was what the arrangement actually was in law. The Standard Residential Tenancy Terms, in Schedule 1 to the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (ACT), say a tenant must not assign or sublet the premises, or any part of them, without the lessor's written consent, and that no rights in the premises can be created for a third party before consent is obtained. Section 128 of that Act then says that where a tenant purports to sublet without consent, the subletting is unenforceable and the person living there does so as a licensee only. A licensee under what the Tribunal called a "bare licence" simply has permission to be there. It is a personal right, it creates no legal interest in the land, and it can generally be revoked at will, after which the person must leave immediately.

That meant the occupier had none of the tenancy protections. He could not ask ACAT to put him back in the apartment or to order compensation for unlawful termination or wrongful eviction, because those remedies (the Tribunal referred to sections 58 and 83) depend on there being a tenancy the Act recognises. There was no evidence the parties had agreed to limit the right to revoke the arrangement, and the Tribunal noted it does not have equitable jurisdiction, so it could not grant relief on the basis that revoking the licence was unconscionable.

The counterclaim failed for the same reason plus the evidence. Because the sublet was unlawful, the respondent could not rely on the Act's condition-of-premises compensation provisions. As a contract claim it also failed: there was no evidence of loss or damage, and he had moved back in as soon as the access card was reactivated, which broke any causal link between the occupier's use of the apartment and the claimed loss. On the withdrawn compensation claim, the Tribunal observed it was unlikely to have succeeded in any event: the applicant had no evidence linking the failed exam to the eviction and no evidence quantifying his loss, the arrangement was very informal, and he had not followed the steps required by the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 for a personal injury claim. The Tribunal said it published short reasons because of the public interest in showing the legal and practical difficulties faced by people given an unlawful sublease, particularly people facing language or other barriers.

What this means if you are in a similar position

If you are in a similar position, this decision shows the difference between renting from the owner or their agent and taking a room or a whole place from someone who is only a tenant there. Where a tenant hands over the place without the lessor's written consent, ACT law treats the arrangement as unenforceable and treats the occupier as a licensee, not a tenant. A licence can usually be ended straight away, and the tenancy protections about notice periods, reinstatement and compensation for wrongful eviction do not apply.

It also shows what is still available. Money paid in advance for time you never got to use can be recovered as a plain debt, together with interest and the tribunal filing fee, and the decision records that being paid on figures both sides agreed on, including the daily rate, the days occupied and the exchange rate. Claims that go beyond that, such as compensation for stress or a lost exam, were a different matter: they needed a separate cause of action, evidence connecting the loss to what happened, evidence of the amount, and for a personal injury claim, compliance with the pre-action steps in the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002.

The same evidence point cut both ways here, because the cleaning counterclaim failed partly for lack of any evidence of loss. In disputes about money paid for accommodation, most people start with a written demand to the other person setting out the amount, how it is worked out and a date for payment, and only apply to the tribunal if that is not met.

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

Source: ZHOU v CAI (Civil Dispute) [2026] ACAT 48 (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.