Tenant’s appeal dismissed after tribunal found the rent was $1,050 a week, not $500 (NCAT, 2026)

What happened

The dispute was between family members. The tenant is the mother of the first landlord, the second landlord is that landlord's husband, and the third landlord is Bryght Superannuation Pty Ltd ATF Turner Superannuation Fund, the company managing the second landlord's superannuation fund. The tenancy of a property in a lower north-shore suburb of Sydney began on 1 January 2024. Throughout the proceedings the tenant was assisted or represented by another daughter, and at one hearing by her son.

In December 2025 the landlords applied to NCAT for orders terminating the tenancy and giving them possession because rent had not been paid. They said the rent was $1,050 a week and that the tenant was in arrears. The tenant's case was that the rent was $500 a week, that the written tenancy agreement the landlords relied on was a "sham" she had never signed, and that she was not in arrears.

The matter had a long and tangled history. On 11 March 2026 the Tribunal terminated the tenancy, suspended possession to 8 April 2026 and ordered $15,000 in rent arrears (the money limit that applied in those proceedings). The tenant then made three applications to set those orders aside. The first was dismissed, leave for the second was refused, and the third succeeded on 5 May 2026, when the Tribunal set the 11 March orders aside on the basis that the decision had been made in the tenant's absence and her case had not been adequately put. By then, however, a warrant for possession obtained around 20 April had already been executed by the Sheriff's office on 29 April 2026, and the landlords were back in the property. No stay was in force when the warrant was executed.

The landlords' application was re-heard on 13 May 2026. On 15 May 2026 the Tribunal published orders and written reasons terminating the residential tenancy agreement immediately for failure to pay rent, with possession effective immediately. The Tribunal found it was not satisfied that the written agreement in the landlords' documents had been signed by the tenant, but found the terms were set out in the unsigned document dated 1 January 2024 and in text messages between the parties, and that the rent was $4,550 a month, equivalent to about $1,050 a week. It relied on both sides' bank records, which showed payments described as rent totalling $4,550 in early January 2024 and then a pattern of payments effectively totalling $4,550 a month, and on a text message in which the landlord answered the tenant's question "how much was my rent" with "$4,550". The Tribunal found the arrears were in the vicinity of nine months' rent. It recommended the parties arrange an orderly transition so the tenant could collect her belongings, and recommended the tenant obtain independent legal advice.

What each side wanted

The tenant appealed, arguing errors on questions of law: that she was denied procedural fairness because three hearings were held in about a fortnight and the landlords' financial evidence reached her shortly before the hearing; that the reasons for finding rent of $1,050 a week were inadequate and not supported by the evidence; and that the Tribunal failed to hear and decide her separate application to be put back into possession before deciding the landlords' termination application, which she said was a constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction because the executed warrant became a nullity once the earlier orders were set aside. She also sought leave to appeal on the grounds that the decision was not fair and equitable, was against the weight of evidence, and that significant new evidence had arisen, being a letter from the Commonwealth Bank about cash deposits into her account. The landlords, who represented themselves, opposed the appeal in written submissions and pointed to parts of the hearing recording and to documents in the tenant's own appeal bundle.

What the tribunal decided

The Appeal Panel made two orders: "(1) Leave to appeal refused (2) Appeal dismissed". The orders were made on 15 September 2026. No money order was made on the appeal, and the termination and possession orders of 15 May 2026 were left standing.

The Appeal Panel also settled a threshold point in the tenant's favour before dealing with the grounds. Clause 12(2)(b) of Schedule 4 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) normally limits an appeal to a question of law alone where a warrant of possession has been executed in relation to the order under appeal. Here the warrant had been executed in relation to the 11 March 2026 orders, which were later set aside, and no warrant was executed for the 15 May 2026 orders. The Panel held the clause therefore did not apply, so the tenant could argue both an error of law and the grounds that need leave.

Why the tribunal decided it that way

An internal appeal within NCAT runs under section 80 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW). A party can appeal as of right on a "question of law", meaning a legal error such as a denial of procedural fairness (not being given a fair chance to be heard), making an order the Tribunal had no power to make, failing to deal with a substantial argument that was squarely raised, or applying the wrong legal principle. Anything else, including a complaint that the Tribunal got the facts wrong or applied the right principle badly, needs the Appeal Panel's permission, called leave. The Panel set out that a wrong finding of fact is not by itself an error of law.

For decisions of the Consumer and Commercial Division, leave can only be granted on the grounds in clause 12(1) of Schedule 4: that the decision was not fair and equitable, that it was against the weight of evidence, or that significant new evidence has arisen that was not reasonably available at the time. The appellant must also show they may have suffered a substantial miscarriage of justice, which the Panel described, following earlier authority, as a significant possibility or a chance fairly open that a different and more favourable result would have followed. Even then, leave is discretionary and is usually given only where there is an issue of principle, a question of general importance, a reasonably clear injustice, or fact finding done in an unorthodox way likely to produce an unfair result.

On the new evidence point, the Panel noted that the bank letter did not say when the tenant's representative had asked the bank for the information, so it could not be worked out whether that material had been sought before or after the decision under appeal, and that the bank itself said it could not confirm who had made the cash deposits. The Panel also observed that most of the other material in the appeal bundle appeared to have been before the Member at the 13 May hearing. On procedural fairness, the Panel recorded that the tenant's own submissions accepted that when her representative complained the landlords had no hard copy bundle, the Member offered to adjourn so the documents could be photocopied and the representative replied that she could rely on her phone and did not want to make the hearing late.

The Panel also commented, although it was not a ground of appeal, that the 11 March 2026 orders did not appear to have been made "in the absence" of the tenant within the meaning of the set-aside power in regulation 9(1)(b) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Regulation 2022 (NSW), because the reasons showed her son appeared, was accepted as her representative, made submissions on the disputed issues and gave sworn evidence. The published text available here stops partway through that discussion, so the Panel's detailed analysis of each ground of appeal is not set out above.

What this means if you are in a similar position

If you are in a similar position, this decision shows how NCAT works out what the rent actually was when there is no signed agreement. The Tribunal was not satisfied the written agreement had been signed, but it still found a tenancy on written terms, because the unsigned document, the text messages and, most of all, the pattern of bank payments described as rent all pointed the same way. Contemporaneous records made at the time, such as bank statements and messages, carried more weight than later assertions about what a party could afford or what the rent had been under an earlier arrangement.

It also shows what an appeal is and is not. An appeal is not a second go at the same argument. A party who disagrees with the facts the Tribunal found needs permission to appeal, and must show more than that the Tribunal was arguably wrong. Material described as "new evidence" generally has to be evidence that was not reasonably available earlier, and it helps if the record shows when it was sought. The timing of a warrant matters too: a warrant executed while no stay is in place is not made unlawful just because the orders behind it are later set aside, though in this case the warrant related to the earlier orders and so did not narrow the tenant's appeal rights.

In a rent arrears or termination dispute, most people start with something in writing before any tribunal application, usually a written notice or response that sets out the rent they say was agreed, what they have paid, and what they want done, with the bank records and messages attached. An application to the tribunal, or an appeal where a decision has already been made, is the step after that.

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

Source: Karami v Arruda [2026] NSWCATAP 291 (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.