Tenants who left a fixed-term lease early ordered to pay $590.06 in reletting and advertising costs (NTCAT, 2026)

What happened

The landlord and the two tenants signed a 12-month residential tenancy agreement for a house in Woolner in the Northern Territory. The tenancy started on 5 June 2025 and was due to run until 3 June 2026. The rent was $730.00 per week. A security deposit (a bond) of $2,920.00 was originally held in trust, and by the time of the hearing $590.06 of it was still being withheld.

The landlord's RT08 notice, the "Notice of Landlord's Intention to Retain Security Deposit", recorded that the premises were vacated or abandoned on 8 December 2025. That was a little over six months into the agreed 12-month term.

New tenants were found quickly. They signed a tenancy agreement running from 8 December 2025 to 3 June 2026, which was exactly the rest of the period the former tenants had committed to. The landlord's agent gave evidence at the hearing about the work done to find those new tenants.

The landlord's management agreement with her agent provided for a letting fee of one week's rent plus GST, being $803, and in December 2025 the landlord paid her agent that $803 fee, deducted in two parts from the rent income owed to her. Advertising the property cost $204.00. The Tribunal noted the former tenants had been offered the option of advertising the property themselves but chose to let the landlord's agent do it at their cost. The former tenants did not attend the hearing and did not contest the claim, and correspondence between the parties indicated they accepted the amounts claimed.

What each side wanted

The landlord applied for compensation under section 122 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1999 (NT) of $590.06, made up of a reletting fee of $386.06 and advertising costs of $204.00, describing it as the loss she suffered in securing new tenants. She also asked for her NTCAT filing fee. The former tenants filed nothing and did not appear, and the Tribunal recorded that their correspondence showed they accepted the amounts claimed.

What the tribunal decided

The Tribunal ordered the former tenants to pay the landlord compensation under section 122 of the Act of $590.06, and to pay the landlord costs of $82.00 by 30 March 2026. The $82.00 was the NTCAT filing fee, awarded under section 132(1A) of the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2014 (NT).

The Tribunal also noted that once the compensation order was made, the sum held on trust (the $590.06 withheld from the security deposit) would be available to the landlord.

Why the tribunal decided it that way

Section 122 of the Act allows the Tribunal to order a tenant to compensate a landlord for loss caused by ending a fixed-term tenancy early. The Tribunal first checked the statutory cap in section 122(5)(c). That provision limits compensation to 28 days rent if less than half the agreed term has passed, and 14 days rent in any other case. Because slightly more than half of the 12-month term had run by 8 December 2025, the cap here was 14 days rent, which was $1,460.00. The claim of $590.06 sat well under that ceiling.

The Tribunal then looked at whether the landlord had actually suffered the loss she claimed. The $204.00 advertising cost was supported by evidence, and the tenants had been given the chance to advertise the property themselves instead but did not take it up. The reletting fee was accepted because the management agreement set a letting fee of one week's rent plus GST ($803), the landlord had in fact paid that $803 to her agent in December 2025, the agent gave evidence at the hearing about the work done to find new tenants, and the new tenants took on only the remaining part of the former tenants' term. The amount actually passed on to the former tenants, $386.06, was less than the full fee the landlord paid, and the agent said it was worked out using a reletting fee formula previously published by Northern Territory Consumer Affairs.

The Tribunal was satisfied the initiating application had been properly served on the former tenants, so it was able to deal with the matter even though they did not appear. On costs, section 132(1A) of the NTCAT Act allowed an award of the $82.00 filing fee.

What this means if you are in a similar position

If you are in a similar position as a landlord in the Northern Territory and a tenant leaves during a fixed term, this decision shows the two questions the Tribunal works through. First, there is a hard ceiling on break-lease compensation under section 122(5)(c): 28 days rent if less than half the term has passed, or 14 days rent if more than half has passed. Second, inside that ceiling the Tribunal still wants proof of an actual loss, not a standard figure. Here the landlord produced the management agreement setting the letting fee, statements showing the fee was really paid, the advertising invoice amount, and live evidence from the agent about the work done to re-let.

If you are the tenant in that situation, the decision also shows that choices you make matter to the figure. These tenants were offered the chance to advertise the property themselves and declined, which the Tribunal treated as part of why the advertising cost was fair to pass on. It is also worth noting that the money came out of a security deposit that was already being withheld under an RT08 notice, and the Tribunal only released it to the landlord once it had made the compensation order.

In disputes like this, most people start by putting the claim in writing: an itemised notice or letter setting out exactly what is being withheld from the bond and what each amount is for, with the supporting invoices and agreement attached. If the other side disputes it or does not respond, the next step is usually an application to the tribunal, which then decides the amount on the evidence.

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

Source: Buckland v Gagliardo & Irazusta-Apron [2026] NTCAT 3 (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.