Tenants refused leave to appeal a $500 bond deduction and their privacy claims against an agent (QCAT, 2026)

What happened

The tenants had rented a property since 2018. When the tenancy ended, the managing agent, Richardson and Wrench Caboolture, brought a minor civil dispute claim for $1402.94. That was $393.40 to repair a gate and $1009.54 from the bond for general repairs. A minor civil dispute is a smaller claim heard in a simpler process, usually by an adjudicator.

The tenants filed a counter-application. They sought the full $2400 bond back, $50,000 in compensation for retaliatory conduct, privacy breaches and loss of peaceful enjoyment, removal of unauthorised images, declarations that the agent had breached the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) and the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) (the RTRA Act), and costs. Part of their complaint was that photographs of their children had been used in advertising without permission. The decision records that this was done by a former agent while advertising the property for sale.

At the hearing on 14 November 2025, the agent withdrew the gate claim. The adjudicator ordered the Residential Tenancies Authority to pay out the $2400 bond, with $1900 to the tenants and $500 to the agent. The adjudicator dismissed the tenants' counter-application because the tribunal did not have jurisdiction, meaning the legal power, to decide it. The tenants then applied for leave to appeal.

What each side wanted

The tenants set out nine grounds of appeal. In summary, they argued that the adjudicator accepted the damage claim without the entry condition report and wrongly treated wear and tear as damage. They said they were denied procedural fairness, meaning a fair chance to present their case, because their evidence was not properly considered. They also said the $500 deduction was not supported by reliable evidence or reasons, and that the counter-claim was wrongly dismissed when parts of it fell within the tribunal's tenancy powers. They relied on sections 94, 183, 185 and 246A of the RTRA Act and on Australian Privacy Principles 6, 11 and 12. The tenants did not file written submissions for the appeal, so the appeal tribunal treated their grounds of appeal as their submissions. It also checked the original tribunal file to understand them. The decision does not set out any arguments made by the agent on the appeal.

What the tribunal decided

The appeal tribunal ordered that leave to appeal is refused. This means the appeal did not go ahead, and the original orders stand. The bond is split $1900 to the tenants and $500 to the agent, and the counter-application remains dismissed.

Why the tribunal decided it that way

Under section 142(3)(a) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), a party can only appeal a minor civil dispute decision with the appeal tribunal's permission, called leave. Leave is usually given only if there is a reasonable argument that the decision was wrong and an appeal is needed to correct a substantial injustice, or if the appeal raises a question of general importance. The appeal tribunal will not usually disturb findings of fact if they were open on the evidence. A decision is not wrong just because another view was possible.

On the $500, the tribunal found that the entry condition report was in evidence, even if the agent had not attached it to its application. The adjudicator's reasons show that both the entry and exit reports were considered. The adjudicator also considered wear and tear. He noted that the term has no set legal definition and must be judged case by case. He accepted that there were imperfections in the walls at the start of the lease and that the repainting covered the whole property. However, he found that some marks were more than wear and tear, and he allowed $500 on the painting invoices. The appeal tribunal said this conclusion was open on the evidence and adequately explained. Because the case ran as a claim and a counter-claim, the argument that the burden of proof had been shifted onto the tenants did not arise. The tenants did not explain how the duties of quiet enjoyment (section 183) and habitability (section 185) were relevant. Their own submissions to the adjudicator were that those issues had been fixed.

On privacy, the tribunal explained that it only has the powers an Act of Parliament gives it. Section 25 of the Privacy Act gives power over compensation claims to the Federal Court and the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2), not to the tribunal. The alleged breaches were also made by a former agent who was not a party to the case. The tribunal was not shown any law that made the current agent responsible for that conduct. The Principle 12 complaint related to the gate claim, which had been withdrawn.

On retaliation and bad faith, the tribunal said section 183 is about quiet enjoyment and section 94 deals with rent decreases, so the claimed duty of good faith was not clearly explained. Section 246A gives a remedy for certain retaliatory actions taken to intimidate or punish a tenant. Those actions are giving a notice to remedy breach, increasing the rent, acting to end the tenancy, or refusing a further agreement. The lease had already ended when the agent's alleged conduct happened, and none of that conduct fell within those types. The adjudicator had considered these claims, so the complaint that they were ignored could not be accepted.

What this means if you are in a similar position

This decision shows how the tribunal approaches bond disputes after a long tenancy. Wear and tear has no fixed definition and is judged on the evidence in each case, including entry and exit condition reports. Where an agent repaints a whole property, the tribunal may allow only part of the cost if some marks go beyond wear and tear. It also shows that appealing a minor civil dispute is not a second hearing. If you are in a similar position, you would generally need to show a reasonable argument that the decision was wrong and that an appeal is needed to fix a real injustice. Disagreeing with how the evidence was weighed is not usually enough.

The decision also shows the limits of the tribunal's powers. Claims under the Commonwealth Privacy Act for compensation belong in the federal courts. A claim against a former agent generally needs to be made against that former agent. The retaliation remedy in section 246A covers only the specific actions listed in it.

In bond and tenancy disputes, most people start by putting their position in writing to the other side, such as a written demand or a notice, before lodging an application with the tribunal.

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

Source: Kaui v Richardson and Wrench Caboolture [2026] QCATA 144 (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.