Tenant’s claim over goods disposed of in 2018 dismissed as filed outside the six-year limit (SACAT, 2026)

What happened

The tenant applied to SACAT for compensation under sections 97 to 97C of the Residential Tenancies Act 1995. Those sections set out what a landlord must do with property a tenant leaves behind at the premises after a residential tenancy agreement ends. She said her property had been disposed of improperly by her landlord, Housing Choices, in 2018, when the tenancy ended.

A directions hearing (a short hearing about how a case will run, not about the merits) was held on 21 April 2026. At that hearing the Senior Member raised an obstacle: section 35 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1936 says actions on a contract must be started within six years of the cause of action arising, and not after. A "cause of action" is the event that gives a person the right to make a claim.

The tenant first asked the tribunal to use section 48 of that Act to extend the time. The Senior Member pointed out that section 48 gives the power to extend time to "a court", and that there is substantial authority that SACAT is not a court. The tenant said she had been advised otherwise, and was given time to put in written submissions.

What arrived was a single page, unsigned, with no letterhead and no author's name, described by the tenant as a letter from her lawyers. It accepted that section 48 did not let the tribunal extend time, but argued the Limitation of Actions Act did not apply to the tribunal at all, relying on an earlier SACAT decision, Taylor & Anor v Marveggio & Ors [2020] SACAT 68. It said that view was confirmed in correspondence between the tribunal's Registrar and the Commissioner for Consumer and Business Services, and said a page of that correspondence was attached, but nothing was attached. The tribunal found the correspondence itself on the public record and said it reflected a view consistent with the earlier decision, but did not confirm it.

What each side wanted

The tenant asked for compensation for property she said the landlord had disposed of improperly, and argued her application could go ahead because the Limitation of Actions Act has no application to tribunal proceedings, so there was no time limit; the Residential Tenancies Act itself sets none. The matter was decided on the papers, and the decision records the landlord making no argument of its own; the contrary position set out in the reasons came from written submissions the Crown Solicitor had made for the Attorney-General in the earlier Taylor case, which argued that the Residential Tenancies Act and the SACAT Act form an exhaustive scheme and that a tribunal dispute is not an "action" under the Limitation of Actions Act.

What the tribunal decided

The tribunal dismissed the application.

No compensation was ordered and no money was awarded to either side. The decision records no other orders.

Why the tribunal decided it that way

The case turned on one short definition in section 3 of the Limitation of Actions Act: "action includes legal proceedings of all kinds". In the earlier Taylor decision, the tribunal had accepted that this wording was a legislative oversight and should be read as though it said legal proceedings of all kinds in a court, which would put tribunal cases outside the Act. The member in Taylor recorded having reached that view "not without hesitation".

The Senior Member here declined to read the definition that way. Section 14 of the Legislation Interpretation Act 2021 requires a provision to be read in the way that best achieves the purpose of the Act it sits in. He applied High Court authority setting a high bar for reading extra words into a statute, including Alcan (NT) Alumina, IW v City of Perth, Taylor v The Owners – Strata Plan No 11564 and Newcastle City Council v GIO General, which hold that the text is the surest guide and that a modified meaning must still be consistent with the language Parliament actually used. He noted there is no principle that a provision should be read so as to promote the purposes of a different Act.

He also pointed to the public policy behind time limits: they tell people how long to keep records, and without them a person's liability for past events could never become certain. Those reasons apply to tenancy disputes as much as any other. On the suggestion of an oversight, he observed it would have had to survive since at least 1978, through the 1995 Residential Tenancies Act, the 2013 SACAT Act, and the six years since Taylor flagged it. He found the more likely conclusion is that Parliament meant what the words say, and held that the Limitation of Actions Act applies to tribunal proceedings.

The second question was which limit applied: six years for an action founded on a simple contract (section 35), or twelve years for an action on a specialty (section 34), a term that covers a deed under seal and, on one view, an obligation arising under a statute. There was no deed. The duties in sections 97 to 97C are imposed by statute, but they only apply to property left behind after a residential tenancy agreement has been terminated, so they can only ever arise where there was a contract and it has ended. The Senior Member held the obligation arises so directly from the contract that the six-year contract limit applies, adding it would be perverse if abandoned-goods claims could be brought six years after every other claim under the same tenancy agreement was already barred. The cause of action arose when the tenancy ended and the goods were said to have been disposed of, in 2018, so the application was out of time and could not lawfully be considered.

What this means if you are in a similar position

This decision shows how a time limit can end a tenancy claim before anyone looks at whether the complaint is right or wrong. If you are in a similar position, the tribunal's view here is that the six-year limit in section 35 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1936 applies to residential tenancy claims in SACAT, measured from when the cause of action arose, even though the Residential Tenancies Act sets no time limit of its own. It also shows that where a claim is about goods left behind after a tenancy ends, the tribunal treated that as closely tied to the tenancy contract rather than as a separate statutory obligation with a longer limit.

The decision also shows what happens to an argument that is asserted rather than supported. The submission relied on correspondence said to be attached, which was not attached; the tribunal found the correspondence itself and said it reflected a view but did not confirm it. The submission was unsigned and did not name its author, and the tribunal recorded that. An earlier tribunal decision going the other way did not decide this case either, because the Senior Member worked through the wording and the interpretation principles himself and reached a different conclusion.

If you are in a similar position over a bond, damage, repairs or belongings, the step most people take first is a written notice or demand to the landlord or agent that sets out what happened, what they want and by when, and keeps a dated record of it. If that does not resolve matters, 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: Morris v Housing Choices [2026] SACAT 41 (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.