The landlord submitted that the tenancy agreement had been terminated subsequent to notification by SAPOL that a clandestine drug laboratory had been identified at the property. The landlord had also been served with a Compliance Notice by the local Council preventing occupancy of the premises and undertaken testing of the property which indicated the presence of methamphetamine above the residential surface criteria in eight out of eleven samples.

The tenant submitted that there was no drug lab or drug use at the premises and that she had no explanation for the levels of methamphetamine reported. The tenant told the Tribunal that she had never been charged by SAPOL and that the police had only attended due to false complaints made by her neighbours.

• The Tribunal finds it more likely than not that methamphetamine manufacture or methamphetamine usage within the house caused the contamination;
• The Tribunal finds it more likely than not that the contamination, and therefore the causative manufacture or use, occurred during the tenant's tenancy and that the tenant caused or permitted the contamination;
• The Tribunal finds that the tenancy agreement has already ended pursuant to s 80A or the Tribunal may terminate the tenancy under s 87(2) of the Act.

Residential Tenancy - Landlord application - Termination and vacant possession - Drug contamination

Residential Tenancies Act 1995 ss 67, 80A, 87, 93

Ms M Mazalla and Ms J Maloney appeared in person for the respondent

Made under the Residential Tenancies Act 1995 ss 80A and 93

1. In this proceeding, two applications are being heard together. Each arose from a notice of termination served on the tenant by the landlord on 12 September 2025, requiring the tenant to give up possession of the premises on 19 September 2025. Ms Haldane, the tenant, applied to the Tribunal on 19 September 2025, to "seek an urgent review and challenge the eviction set for the 19th of September". Three days later, Unity Housing Company, the landlord, applied to the Tribunal for an order for possession.
2. Ms Haldane occupies the premises under an agreement with the landlord; that agreement is a residential tenancy agreement under the Residential Tenancies Act 1995 (the Act). Her tenancy agreement commenced in May 2016; the landlord at that time was the South Australian Housing Trust. The tenancy was later assigned to the present landlord.
3. The relevant sequence of events is this:
   1. On 19 August 2025, SAPOL made a report to the City of Charles Sturt Council, indicating that it had found a Category B non-active clandestine drug lab at the premises.
   2. The council notified the landlord of this on the same day. The council served a notice on the landlord under the South Australian Public Health Act 2011, based on the Council's opinion "that the circumstances... give rise to a public health risk". The notice required the landlord to take certain actions, including limiting access to the premises and engaging a suitably qualified expert to test for contamination.
   3. On 25 August 2025, the landlord notified the tenant of an entry to the premises on 4 September 2025 to carry out testing.
   4. HSE Australia reported the results of that testing, including that 8 of the 11 samples taken had returned results showing methamphetamine residue concentrations over 0.5 micrograms per 100 cm2 (called the "investigation level"). Decontamination was recommended, including removal and disposal of all blinds, curtains, air conditioning units, light switches and power outlets, and multiple washings of all surfaces.
   5. On 12 September 2025, the landlord served on the tenant a Form 6 notice of termination requiring possession to be given up on 19 September 2025.
4. Prior to the hearing, Ms Haldane made several requests for the proceeding to be adjourned, either on the basis that she was caring for her terminally ill father in Port Pirie, or on the basis of her own health. The Tribunal Registrar declined those requests as Ms Haldane did not provide any corroborative evidence that either of those circumstances prevented her from participating in a hearing.
5. Ms Haldane attended the hearing. She was accompanied by Mr Peter Streuss. Each of Ms Haldane and Mr Streuss made submissions. I was unable to discern the relevance of the matters raised by Mr Streuss; he left the hearing room part way through the hearing and did not return.
6. Ms Haldane's submissions were essentially that there was no drug lab, she had not been charged and that the police had only attended because of the latest of several false complaints made about her by her neighbour.
7. I conducted the hearing with a view that the Form 6 notice of termination was served on the tenant after the landlord received the results of the HSE Australia report. On re-examination of that evidence, the report's "Revision No. 1" is dated 18 September 2025. On reflection, my error does not affect the outcome of the landlord's application, as is explained below.
8. On becoming aware of drug-related conduct on the premises, s 67B of the Act requires the landlord to notify the tenant that testing for contamination will be carried out, and to carry out the testing. If the premises are found to be contaminated, the section requires the landlord to decontaminate the premises as soon as is reasonably practicable.
9. Under s 80A, if the testing in accordance with s 67B indicates contamination caused by the tenant's drug-related conduct, the landlord may, by notice served on the tenant, terminate the tenancy.
10. It may or may not be that the landlord received preliminary test results satisfying the requirements of s 80A before the notice of termination was served on 12 September 2025; my oversight meant that that question was not dealt with at the hearing. However, on either scenario, I consider that the preferable outcome of the landlord's application is to make an order for possession.
11. Firstly, I have no basis on which to reject the evidence in the HSE Australia report and find that in eight different locations within the premises, there were surface levels of methamphetamine residue exceeding 0.5 micrograms per 100 cm2. I note the following information published by the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department:

Methylamphetamine synthesis (or "cooking") operations will contaminate inside surfaces of buildings with residual methylamphetamine. Studies have also established that smoking methylamphetamine will likewise contaminate the inside surfaces of buildings with methylamphetamine. Regardless, the presence of methylamphetamine on inside surfaces at a level of greater than 0.5 micrograms (µg) per 100cm² is considered unacceptable.[1]

12. The identified residues are not ordinarily present in significant levels in residential premises. Methamphetamine manufacture or use are the only likely causes for the residue to be present. Ms Haldane denied any drug manufacture. She denied using methamphetamine and denied permitting visitors to the premises to use methamphetamine. She could not offer any reasonable explanation as to how the residues came to be there.
13. Having accepted the results of the testing, I find it more likely than not that methamphetamine manufacture or methamphetamine usage within the house caused the contamination. As Ms Haldane has been the tenant since 2016, I find it more likely than not that the contamination, and therefore the causative manufacture or use, occurred during her tenancy. It follows that she caused or permitted the contamination.
14. If the landlord received results of the testing before 12 September 2025, the tenancy agreement is validly terminated under s 80A. If not, I am left with a finding that the tenant caused the contamination found in the testing. The decontamination required is substantial. I consider it manifest that the costs involved will be substantial. There is no bond. I am satisfied that the contamination amounts to serious damage to the premises.
15. It is established that it is open to the Tribunal to determine under which section or sections of the Act an application is to be determined. Under section 87(2), the Tribunal can terminate a tenancy and make an order for possession if a tenant has caused serious damage to the premises. I consider that to apply here.
16. The result is that either the tenancy was already terminated by force of law under s 80A or the Tribunal terminates the tenancy under s 87(2). In either case, the tenancy agreement has ended, and the only order that is consistent with the scheme of the Act is an order for possession.
17. The landlord requested immediate possession noting that, per the Council Notice, no-one was supposed to be even entering the premises (let alone living there). Ms Haldane requested a month in which to move out.
18. Ms Haldane said that she has nowhere else to go, and has a dog. She retains possessions in the home. I note that the HSE Australia report suggests that some possessions may be relatively easily decontaminated, for example, 99.9% of methamphetamine could be removed from clothes by washing at least three times. I am unwilling to order immediate possession. However, I am equally unwilling to suspend the order for possession, given the contamination and the health risks posed for any occupant. I will therefore allow the maximum time under s 93 of the Act without suspending the order: seven days.

1. Ms Haldane submitted that the hearing should have been adjourned and that it was unfair to her to have proceeded, as she needed more time and was unwell. In my view, the evidence was such that a) there was no arguable case to permit the tenancy agreement to continue, as the evidence is that the premises are uninhabitable, b) the circumstances are such that the determination should not be further delayed, and c) Ms Haldane attended the hearing with an advocate willing and able to speak on her behalf. I do not consider that the process has been unfair.

1. The tenant must move out of the premises by midday on Friday 17 October 2025 but if the tenant does not move out, this order may only be enforced by the Tribunal bailiff.

[1] Clandestine Drug Laboratory Remediation Guidelines, Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department, 2011.