The tenant submitted that the original findings about her behaviour are incorrect, and the evidence is insufficient to establish a breach of her obligations as a tenant. The landlord relied on the evidence provided in the original hearing and sought immediate possession.

• The Tribunal grants leave to apply for internal review.
• The Tribunal finds that the agreement between the parties is a residential tenancy agreement within the meaning of the Residential Tenancies Act 1995 ("RTA").
• The Tribunal finds that the tenant made the remarks alleged on at least one occasion.
• Where a landlord lives in the same house as a tenant, the landlord can rely on Section 90 RTA to bring an application to the Tribunal seeking an order terminating the tenancy on the grounds of disruptive conduct, but a higher test than usual will be applied to the question of whether or not the tenant's conduct has caused an interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of another person who resides in the immediate vicinity of the property (ie where the issue is the impact of that conduct on the landlord who resides in the same property).
• In these circumstances, it is more appropriate to deal with the application under Section 87(2) RTA and in that case, because of the close proximity of the living arrangements between the landlord and the tenant, then a lower test than usual should be applied.
• The Tribunal finds that, in the circumstances of these breaches, the tenancy should be terminated having regard to the fact that:
  • Ms Doherty's conduct is serious;
  • her submissions do not adequately excuse her conduct; and
  • she does not appear to appreciate the impact of her behaviour.
• The Tribunal finds that the date for vacant possession should be varied, considering Ms Doherty's personal hardship and the lesser impact of Ms Doherty's presence while Dr Duffy is away.

Internal review - Residential tenancy - Landlord application - Termination and vacant possession - Conduct - Tenant intentionally or recklessly caused or permitted - Verbal abuse - Personal injury - Psychological harm

Residential Tenancies Act 1995 ss 3, 5, 87, 90

South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 s 70

Goji v South Australian Housing Trust [2018] SACAT 43

Kennaway v Thompson [1980] EWCA Civ 1; (1981) QB 88

Nguyen v Hao [2025] SACAT 65

South Australian Housing Trust v Wait [2016] SACAT 41

Mr Moroney, RentRight SA, appeared for the applicant

Ms Fewster, Fewster Properties Pty Ltd, appeared for the respondent

1. This is an application for the internal review of a decision made by the Tribunal on 7 January 2026 in matter number 2025/SH012915 (the original Order).
2. In the original Order, the Tribunal dealt with an application by the respondent landlord Dr Duffy, seeking an order to terminate the tenancy of the applicant Ms Doherty on the grounds of Ms Doherty's conduct.
3. In the original Order, the Tribunal terminated the tenancy and required Ms Doherty to vacate the property on 4 February 2026.
4. Ms Doherty disagrees with the original Order, and she has sought a review.

1. The property at Eden Hills (the property) is a five bedroom house with three bathrooms. Ms Doherty occupies a section of the house which is a self-contained unit (for the purposes of this decision, we will describe that section of the house as the flat).
2. The flat comprises a kitchen/living/dining room, a bedroom and a bathroom/laundry. That section of the house has its own independent access and is not able to be accessed by anyone in the rest of the house.[1]
3. Ms Doherty and Dr Duffy entered into a tenancy agreement for the flat commencing on 3 October 2024. The tenancy was for a period of 12 months, and rent was payable at $440 per week inclusive of utilities.
4. The parties entered into a lease extension for a further 12 month period expiring on 3 October 2026 at the same rent.
5. However, on 2 December 2025, Dr Duffy made an application to the Tribunal seeking an order terminating the tenancy of Ms Doherty.
6. As a result of Dr Duffy's application, the Tribunal conducted a hearing on 5 January 2026, and made an order requiring Ms Doherty to vacate the flat on 4 February 2026. This is the order of which Ms Duffy has sought a review.
7. This application for review was listed for a directions hearing and at the directions hearing, the Tribunal granted a stay of the original Order, until further order of the Tribunal.

1. An application for internal review is dealt with under section 70 of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (the SACAT Act). Section 70 of the SACAT Act requires that on review, the Tribunal must make the correct or preferable decision, taking into account the evidence at the original hearing, giving appropriate weight to the original Order, and taking into account any further evidence that is relevant and appropriate to take into account in the course of the review. An application for internal review necessarily involves an application for leave.
2. We will apply the following approach in determining whether the original Order is the correct or preferable order:
   1. As the Tribunal only has jurisdiction to deal with a dispute of this kind if the agreement between the parties is either a residential tenancy agreement or a rooming house agreement within the meaning of the Residential Tenancies Act 1995 (the RTA); the first question to decide is whether the agreement between the parties, is an agreement under the RTA.
   2. If so, then the next question is: is Ms Doherty in breach of her obligations under the agreement or the RTA?
   3. And the third question is: if the agreement is an agreement under the RTA, and if Ms Doherty is in breach of her obligations under the RTA or under the agreement, then in all the circumstances, should the agreement be terminated?

Question 1: Is the agreement between the parties a residential tenancy agreement?

1. Although the parties did not dispute the Tribunal's jurisdiction, the parties cannot agree to the Tribunal's jurisdiction - it is a matter for determination by the Tribunal.
2. We refer to the following statements in Nguyen v Hao:[2]

Section 3 RTA defines a "residential tenancy agreement" as: > > an agreement (other than a rooming house agreement) under which a person grants another person, for valuable consideration, a right (which may, but need not, be an exclusive right) to occupy premises for the purpose of residence; > > In other words, the essential requirements of a residential tenancy agreement are:

• the agreement must require the landlord to provide to the tenant, a right to occupy residential premises or a clearly identified section of the premises;
• generally speaking, that right must be exclusive;
• the right must be in return for the payment of rent and/or a bond; and
• none of the exemptions contained in section 5 RTA must apply.

The right to occupy the entire property or a discrete section of it has been dealt with by the Tribunal in a variety of contexts:

• Generally speaking, if a person is living under the same roof as the landlord, it would be unlikely that they have a residential tenancy agreement; however, it depends on the circumstances, and even if that is the case, it may be possible for there to be a residential tenancy agreement - if the section of the house which is occupied by the person is self-contained (eg with its own bathroom and kitchen facilities, but not necessarily a laundry), it is secure, and it has its own means of access.[3]

1. We also refer to the note to the definition of "residential tenancy agreement" in section 3(1) of the RTA which states as follows:

An agreement under which a person grants another person, for valuable consideration, a right to occupy for residential purposes a building on land (such as a studio or "granny flat") that is located adjacent to or near the primary residence on the land and which the other person has exclusive access to, and possession of, is a residential tenancy agreement.

2. Applying those general principles to this matter, we are satisfied that the agreement between the parties is a residential tenancy agreement within the meaning of the RTA.

Question 2: Is Ms Doherty in breach of her obligations under the tenancy agreement or the RTA?

1. In the review hearing, Ms Doherty disagreed with the findings contained in the original Order about her behaviour. She said that:
   1. The findings did not properly take into account her position and that was partly because she had found the hearing process overwhelming and exhausting, and so she did not have a proper opportunity to present her evidence.
   2. Dr Duffy's version of events is exaggerated and punitive and much of what she said that Ms Doherty has said is simply not true. Ms Doherty said that they are "unfathomable".
   3. The Tribunal placed undue weight on the evidence of Dr Duffy and the neighbour, Ms York, who were firm friends and who were acting together against her. In particular, she disagrees with the Tribunal's reliance on the following evidence about her conduct:
      1. She disputes the finding in paragraph 34 of the original Order that she was extremely aggressive and this was without justification.
      2. She disagrees that she said words to the effect of "I will destroy you" about Dr Duffy and in a manner in which she would hear them through a common wall between the flat and Dr Duffy's study.
      3. She disagrees with the assessment in the original Order, that she expects others to accept her demands and to modify their actions accordingly, and that she is not a person to negotiate in a calm manner.
   4. She acknowledges that on occasion (for example, if she feels threatened), she may become strident, or go a step too far, but not to the lengths claimed by Dr Duffy.
2. Ms Doherty said that Dr Duffy's approach had been distressing and shocking to her because she is an introverted person, who would never harm anyone. In particular, she said that she found the diary of aggression maintained by Dr Duffy to be distressing.
3. Mr Moroney submitted that on review, the Tribunal should find that the evidence is not sufficient to establish that Ms Doherty is in breach of her obligations as a tenant.
4. In the review hearing, Ms Fewster relied on the evidence provided to the Tribunal in the original hearing. She said that Dr Duffy's position remains that she seeks immediate possession of the flat.
5. In the original hearing process, Dr Duffy said that initially, the arrangement worked well, but from about January 2025, Ms Doherty regularly made a lot of noise in the flat (eg banging pots and pans), and this was disruptive for her.
6. In the original hearing process, Dr Duffy gave evidence generally of disruptive or aggressive behaviour of Ms Doherty, but in particular she relied on four incidents which occurred in November and December 2025:
   1. An incident on 12 November 2025 which occurred when a neighbour Karly York, had arranged for a tree to be lopped by her gardener Savan Kramer. Ms Doherty approached Mr Kramer in an angry and abusive manner and argued with him about the impact of the tree lopping on possums living in the tree. Ms York came out of the house to tell Ms Doherty that the tree lopping had been requested by the Council, and Ms Doherty then verbally abused Ms Kramer.
   2. An incident on 13 November 2025 when Dr Duffy was in her study[4] talking on the phone to Ms York about work to be done by Mr Kramer, and Ms Doherty screamed at her through the wall/door "Don't you ever do that you crazy bitch, I will destroy you, I know about Google but you don't want to take me on because you will lose, I will destroy you, you are a terrible woman, don't walk away from me you crazy bitch I will destroy you". Dr Duffy called the police after this incident.
   3. An incident on 27 November 2025 when Dr Duffy was working in her study, and Ms Doherty screamed at her (through the wall/door) "You're a crazy bitch, you can't win against me, I will destroy you". Dr Duffy also reported this to the police.
   4. On 9 December 2025, Dr Duffy had friends at her house and after they left at approximately 7pm, Ms Doherty screamed at her through the door/wall between the flat and the study "You crazy bitch, I'm going to destroy you".

1. In the original Order, the Tribunal found that Ms Doherty had been extremely aggressive towards Ms York and Mr Kramer.[5] The Tribunal also found that Ms Doherty did say words to the effect of "I will destroy you" on at least one occasion to Dr Duffy (even if this occurred through a wall/door). Finally, the Tribunal found that Ms Doherty had been aggressive towards Dr Duffy on other occasions as well.
2. For those reasons, the Tribunal found that the evidence established that Ms Doherty's conduct had caused or permitted an interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of another person who resides in the immediate vicinity of the premises (within the meaning of section 90 of the RTA).
3. We have formed the following conclusions about the evidence of Ms Doherty's conduct:
   1. We accept that on 12 November 2025 there was an altercation between Ms Doherty on the one hand, and the neighbour Ms York and the gardener Mr Kramer on the other hand, and this incident arose due to Mr Kramer lopping a tree branch. Although Ms Doherty has explained that she was upset due to her concern for the possums, in our view, her reaction was disproportionate to her concern, and she behaved angrily towards Ms York and Mr Kramer.
   2. We accept that on 13 November, and likely on more than one occasion, Ms Doherty made rude and abusive remarks towards Dr Duffy, and in a manner so that Dr Duffy could hear them and understand that the remarks were directed towards her. On 13 November 2025, the remarks were overheard by Ms York, who was on the phone to Dr Duffy at the time. Dr Duffy reported that incident to the police. Dr Duffy reported a subsequent similar event to the police. We consider it is unlikely that Dr Duffy would have gone to the lengths of reporting those incidents to the police if they had not occurred in a similar manner to the way in which Dr Duffy described them.
   3. We accept that Ms Doherty considers herself not to be a violent person, however, the fact that she and Dr Duffy were living under the same roof, means that the impact of any such remarks is likely to be far greater than otherwise. In other words, because they were living in the same house, it is reasonable for Dr Duffy to have been frightened by such remarks, even if Ms Doherty had no intention of acting on them, particularly as she said them more than once, and in the context of the incident on 12 November 2025.
4. In the original Order, the Tribunal dealt with the application under section 90 of the RTA. Section 90 of the RTA relevantly provides that the Tribunal may make an order to terminate the tenancy if the landlord (or a person permitted to make an application under that provision) applies for an order to terminate the tenancy, and the Tribunal is satisfied that the tenant has:

Caused or permitted an interference with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of another person who resides in the immediate vicinity of the premises[6]

5. We have reservations about the approach of dealing with the application under section 90 of the RTA for the following reasons.
6. The evidence of disruptive conduct involving the neighbour Ms York, was predominantly about the incident on 12 November 2025. Although there was some evidence about other conduct, the principal evidence concerns the incident of 12 November 2025. While we agree that Ms Doherty's behaviour on that occasion was disproportionate, and disruptive within the meaning of section 90 of the RTA, that incident alone would not be sufficient for the termination of a tenancy agreement.[7]
7. The rest of the evidence was about Ms Doherty's behaviour towards Dr Duffy.
8. Dr Duffy is the landlord and she lives in the same house as Ms Doherty. The question is whether she is also a person who "... who resides in the immediate vicinity of the premises" and in relation to whom the evidence of disruptive conduct may be taken into account for the purposes of section 90 RTA.
9. Our view is that section 90 of the RTA probably is applicable where the landlord and tenant live under the same roof, but in those circumstances, the test to be applied should be different to the test that would generally be applied when dealing with an application under section 90 of the RTA. The following statement is a useful explanation of the general approach taken in these matters:[8]

Those living in towns may be irritated by their neighbours' noisy radios or incompetent playing of musical instruments; and they in turn may be inconvenienced by the noise caused by guests slamming car doors and chattering after a late party ... The question is whether the neighbour is using his property reasonably, having regard to the fact that he has a neighbour. The neighbour who is complaining must remember, too, that the other man can use his property in a reasonable way and there must be a measure of give and take, live and let live.

10. In our view, when a landlord has chosen to rent out a self-contained section of their house, they must expect that their living will be impacted by some noise by the tenant. That is inevitable and not unreasonable. In those circumstances, the test of what is reasonable must be a less stringent test than would otherwise apply.
11. Even so, we consider that the combined evidence about Ms Doherty's conduct on 12 November 2025, and her subsequent verbal abuse of Dr Duffy, would be sufficient to meet the test under section 90(1)(c) of the RTA.
12. But the majority of the evidence on which Dr Duffy relied, concerned remarks made by Ms Doherty towards Dr Duffy (serious examples of those remarks were on 13 November 2025, 27 November 2025 and 9 December 2025); and the impact of Ms Doherty's conduct on Dr Duffy.
13. For example, Dr Duffy described Ms Doherty as having "screamed" at her on these occasions,[9] and she described the impact of the remarks on her in the following terms:

... but I cannot and will not live with aggression. I simply won't. That's what it is. If necessary, I will get an intervention order, it scares me, she scares me, she scares Karley, she scares me. And it's my home, it's my house. It's not like I own a flat and it's 5 km away. But it scares me, she scares me.[10]

14. Therefore, in our assessment, Dr Duffy's prime motivation for bringing the application, was because of concerns about Ms Doherty's behaviour towards her, and the impact of that behaviour towards her.
15. In this situation, we consider that the application is more appropriately dealt with under section 87 of the RTA which relevantly provides:

(1) The Tribunal may, on application by a landlord, terminate a residential tenancy and make an order for possession of the premises if satisfied that -

(a) the tenant has committed a breach of the residential tenancy agreement; and

(b) the breach is sufficiently serious to justify termination of the tenancy.

....

(2) The Tribunal may, on application by a landlord, terminate a residential tenancy and make an order for immediate possession of the premises if the tenant or a person permitted on the premises with the consent of the tenant has, intentionally or recklessly, caused or permitted, or is likely to cause or permit-

...

(b) personal injury to -

(i) the landlord or the landlord's agent; or

(ii) a person in the vicinity of the premises."

1. It is established that "physical injury" can include psychological harm.[11] In the original hearing, Dr Duffy gave evidence that Ms Doherty's behaviour towards her has caused her to live in fear. We accept that statement and in our view, the situation in the household is likely to continue while both Dr Duffy and Ms Doherty are living there.
2. As a result, we accept that it is likely that Dr Duffy is stressed and anxious living in the house while Ms Doherty is there. If she has not already suffered psychological harm from that situation, in our assessment, that would be likely to occur if the tenancy were to continue.
3. Ms Doherty made the remarks intentionally. Accordingly, we consider that the evidence establishes that Ms Doherty's remarks towards Dr Duffy have caused personal injury to Dr Duffy, or that is likely if the tenancy continues, and therefore, the Tribunal has a discretion to terminate the tenancy under section 87(2) of the RTA.

Question 3: In all the circumstances, should the tenancy be terminated?

1. In the review hearing, Mr Moloney and Ms Doherty said that Ms Doherty is currently looking for alternative accommodation, but at this stage, she has not yet secured alternative accommodation.
2. Ms Doherty made the following submissions which are relevant to this issue:
   1. The living circumstances in the flat were difficult - despite the size of the house, and the various options for her use of the balance of the house, Dr Duffy insisted on using a study and bedroom located near to the flat, resulting in Ms Doherty feeling that she had no privacy in her use of the flat.
   2. Both Dr Duffy and Ms York are people who have strong personalities. She has felt at a disadvantage throughout this process because she is not like that.
   3. She is not a violent person. She regrets her behaviour (on 12 and 13 November 2025) - she was "venting" and she was frustrated.
   4. She has worked as a nurse and currently works as a carer.
   5. She has suffered childhood trauma[12] which means that if she feels threatened, she will act to protect herself and that may be perceived as aggressive.
   6. She is self-aware, and she has worked hard to create a dignified life for herself. She has tried to create boundaries (i.e. of others towards her, in relation to acceptable treatment of her) but she may have been unwise in trying to pursue her rights in the Tribunal.
   7. She has found the Tribunal process distressing, but particularly the diary of aggression kept by Dr Duffy.
3. Mr Moloney referred to the power imbalance, particularly because Ms Doherty resides in Dr Duffy's property with her.
4. Ms Fewster repeated that Dr Duffy's instructions are that she seeks termination of the tenancy. Ms Fewster acknowledged that Dr Duffy is currently away and will not return until early April, but she said that Dr Duffy has made arrangements for her neighbour (Ms York) to look after the property while she is away, and this is difficult while Ms Doherty is still there.

1. In making a determination about this aspect of the matter, we must exercise a discretion and in doing so we have taken into account the following factors:
   1. The seriousness of the incidents on which Dr Duffy has relied.
   2. The response of Ms Doherty.
   3. The likely consequences for Dr Duffy if the tenancy is not terminated.
   4. The likely consequences for Ms Doherty if the tenancy is terminated.
2. We agree with the determination in the original Order, that the relationship between Ms Doherty and Dr Duffy is now unmanageable, and the tenancy should be terminated for the following reasons:

1. The incidents on which Dr Duffy relied are serious: 1. There have been at least two incidents of aggressive behaviour by Ms Doherty towards Dr Duffy and also the incident involving Ms York and Mr Kramer. 2. Those incidents have resulted in Dr Duffy calling the police on two occasions, and feeling frightened of living in her own home. 2. Ms Doherty's explanation of the circumstances leading up to the incidents of 12 November 2025 and 13 November 2025, does not adequately explain her behaviour, for example: 1. She said that she was feeling frustrated and fed up with her situation - she said that "things [were] coming to a head on 12 November".[13] 2. She referred to Ms York's involvement in the matter - in the review hearing, Ms Doherty effectively suggested that Dr Duffy had aligned herself with Ms York against Ms Doherty. 3. Ms Doherty also referred to feeling intimidated by Ms York's dog.

1. There is no dispute about Ms Doherty's evidence of childhood trauma,[14] and although we accept that Ms Doherty's response may have been at least partly attributable to that, it is not an excuse for her conduct.

1. Ms Doherty does not appear to appreciate the impact of her behaviour towards Dr Duffy.[15] 2. However, we accept that Dr Duffy could have managed the situation in the household in a more sympathetic manner, and it is unfortunate that she was not able to utilise the space in the house to allow Ms Doherty some more privacy. 3. Although Ms Doherty has said that she will vacate in the near future, at this stage she does not have alternative accommodation arranged. 4. While Dr Duffy is away on holidays, the impact of Ms Doherty remaining in the flat is less significant for Dr Duffy.
2. For all of the above reasons, we have decided to vary the original Order, and to allow Ms Doherty to remain in the property until 27 March 2026, but the tenancy will terminate and she must vacate on that date.

1. The Tribunal grants leave to apply for internal review.
2. The Tribunal varies the Tribunal order made on 7 January 2026 in matter number 2025/SH012915 by deleting Orders 1 and 2, and substituting the following order instead:
   1. The tenancy will terminate on Friday 27 March 2026 and the tenant must vacate the property by midday on that day. If the tenant does not vacate, this order may be enforced by the Tribunal bailiff.

[1] Although there is a door between that section of the house occupied by Ms Doherty and the flat, that door is locked, and is lockable from Ms Doherty's side.

[2] [2025] SACAT 65.

[3] In Lennard v Sweet (2021) SIR000215 (unreported), the Tribunal found that there was a residential tenancy agreement for a section of the house because it was discrete, self-contained and able to be locked.

[4] The map of the property shows that the study is adjacent to the kitchen in the flat (i.e. has a common wall with).

[6] Clause 3.2.7 of the tenancy agreement is effectively a reproduction of the obligation under section 71 of the RTA (which then gives rise to a right to bring an application under section 90 of the RTA).

[7] On occasion, the Tribunal will terminate a tenancy on the basis of a single incident (see for example, South Australian Housing Trust v Wait [2016] SACAT 41), this is unusual, and the incident relied on must be extreme - this incident is not in those realms, even with some other minor disruptive conduct towards the neighbour.

[8] Kennaway v Thompson [1980] EWCA Civ 1; (1981) QB 88, 94.

[9] See pages 16, 13 and 12 of the transcript from the original hearing.

[11] See Goji v South Australian Housing Trust [2018] SACAT 43.

[12] And we note that Ms Doherty's evidence in relation to her mental health issues was not available to the Tribunal in the original hearing process.

[14] Although Ms Doherty did not provide any medical evidence in support of any current diagnosis she may have as a result of that.

[15] For example, see page 37 of the transcript of the original hearing when she says "When I raised my voice at Janice from my kitchen, I was not being threatening or violent towards her. I was not abusive. I did not bang on the door or anything else."