Next Property v Ryan-Mills [2026] QCAT 110

Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008, s 420

Eising v Westgarth Realty Pty Ltd [2019] QCATA 120 Tuendemann v JD Property (Aust) Pty Ltd [2023] QCATA 153;

[1] This application is made pursuant to section 429 of the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) ("the Act") seeking compensation following the termination of a residential tenancy agreement, for a garage door installed on 9 October 2025 and found to be substantially dented (a singular deep circular dent to the right-hand panel) when inspected by the landlord on 21 October 2025, after the tenant had vacated on or about 17 October 2025.

[3] On 17 October 2025, the tenant gave notice to vacate due to alleged mould and other concerns. The notice was accepted by the lessor, and the tenancy ended on 17 October 2025.

[4] The tenant vacated the premises on 17 October 2025 and left the key in a lockbox, which could not be accessed. A replacement key was required.

[5] The tenant does not contest liability for the following:

(a) rent to the final day, 17 October 2025, in the amount of $185.71 (though the tenant did have cleaners, gardeners and removalists in situ at least on 18 October 2025, the lessor does not press for rent after 17 October 2025)

(b) the cost of cutting a replacement key in the amount of $3.61.

[6] The primary issue in dispute concerns damage to the right-hand garage door and the cost of replacement in the amount of $2,200.00.

[7] Section 420 of the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) allows the Tribunal to make compensation orders (and/or other orders) for breaches of tenancy agreements, including an order for the payment of money or an order for compensation.

[8] As stated in Tuendemann v JD Property (Aust) Pty Ltd [2023] QCATA 153, tenants are required to leave the premises in substantially the same condition as at the start of the tenancy, fair wear and tear excepted.

[9] Griffin v Gini, Judge Fleur Kingham, Deputy President, stated:

"In general, the ordinary meaning of the phrase [fair wear and tear] is concerned with the consequences of ordinary, not extraordinary damage (JSM Management Pty Ltd v QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd [2011] VSC 339, [36]). In the case of 'wear,' this might mean, for example, fading paintwork on internal and external walls caused by sunlight over time; 'tear' refers to disrepair caused by a tenant through unintentional action or through the normal incident of a tenant's occupation (Taylor v Webb [1937] 2 KB 283, 302)." (emphasis added)

[10] Claims for compensation arising from a breach of the Act or the tenancy agreement must be made within six months of the claiming party "becoming aware of the breach" (Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld), s 419).

[11] Section 136D(2) of the Act requires the Tribunal to consider specific factors when making orders about rental bonds, including tenant efforts to comply with section 188(4), compliance with the Act, and evidence supporting the claims.

[12] Tenants are entitled to their bond unless the lessor proves a valid claim for compensation (Property Indulgence v Allen [2020] QCATA 66).

[13] The evidence establishes, and it was uncontroversial, that both garage doors at the premises were replaced on 9 October 2025, eight days prior to the tenant vacating. The total cost of replacement of both doors was $5,393.67, as evidenced by an invoice and owner statements confirming payment in full.

[14] Photographs time-stamped 9 October 2025 at 12:08 pm from Pioneer Garage Doors show the doors immediately following installation and in undamaged condition.

[15] The tenant said she moved out on 16 October, moved her boat on 17 October 2025, though had a bond clean, gardening and removalists on 18 October 2025.

[16] The exit inspection was conducted on 21 October 2025. Photographs taken at that inspection show a deep dent to the right-hand garage door, circular in shape:

[17] Text messages between the managing agent, Talitha of Next Property Group, and Jason Selzer of Pioneer Garage Doors were tendered. Mr Selzer provided a statutory declaration including text messages with photographs taken on 9 October 2025 show the tenant's boat positioned in close proximity to the garage door. Mr Selzer gave his opinion that the damage was caused by a boat skeg. I do not need to find the cause of the damage, only that the premises were in that state when returned to the landlord.

[18] The statutory declaration further states that the door cannot be repaired. As it is not a panelled door, the entire door requires replacement.

[19] The tenant submits that the lessor has not discharged the onus of proof on the balance of probabilities.

[20] The tenant contends that it is possible a member of the public accessed the property between 17 October and 21 October 2025, parked a boat in the driveway, and caused the damage.

[21] The respondent, Ms Rebecca Amy Ryan-Mills (who prefers to be addressed as Bec Mills), disclosed that she has Autism Level 2 and receives support through the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). She also claimed to have Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (CPTSD) as a result of previous dealings with the landlord. I need and make no finding about this but for the hearing all requested and supports were provided, including leave to attend by telephone and for a support person, Ms Senn, to be present and to read a written statement for Ms Mills.

[22] The transcript of the hearing will reflect the various adjustments offered to the tenant, who chose to appear by phone. The extent to which Ms Senn could assist (that is, not to embark upon legal advice or cross-examination) was explained and Ms Senn informed to notify the court if Ms Mills required a break or for matters to be explained again or if my explanations were unclear.

[23] When Ms Mills did speak, she appeared to be articulate, and not unfamiliar with litigation and she was capable of representing and articulating her own interests, often strongly.

[24] At the start of the hearing, I outlined the process and confirmed that each party relied on the material filed in QCASE and each had received that material.

[25] For the landlord, this included a statutory declaration from the installer of the garage door on 9 October 2025

[26] Other than the key alleged to have been left in the lockbox, it is not alleged that a key was returned to the lessors. The tenant did not call the alleged bond cleaners, gardener, or removalist to give evidence.

[27] Broader claims, including a Magistrates Court proceeding between the parties, were not within the scope of this Tribunal hearing. I made it clear that I was not seized of those matters and would not consider them in this decision. The tenant introduced material related to the broader claims, alleging that the landlord was being manipulative. However, I found that it was the tenant, not the landlord, who sought to make the proceedings more emotive than necessary.

[28] During the hearing, an issue was raised regarding the service of a document uploaded to QCASE. The lessor clarified that they were no longer relying on the tenant's boat being at the property on 21 October 2025 (the date the photographs were taken). At the start of the hearing, I confirmed with both parties that all materials relied upon by the other party had been received, rendering the point academic.

[29] The stated objects of the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) under section 3 are to deal with matters before the Tribunal in a way that is accessible, fair, just, economical, and quick. No adjournment was requested, and nothing would have been achieved by it as the tenant had the material.

[30] Under the Act, a tenant must return the premises in substantially the same condition as at the start of the tenancy, fair wear and tear excepted.

[31] The evidence establishes that the garage door was newly installed on 9 October 2025 and was undamaged at that time.

[32] A dent to the garage door was identified during the exit inspection conducted shortly after the tenant vacated the premises.

[33] The tenant claims she left the keys in a lockbox after vacating the premises. However, the lockbox could not be accessed. I therefore find that possession of the premises was not returned until the landlord attended the property on 21 October 2025. I note, however, that the landlord only seeks rent until 17 October 2025.

[34] The tenant submitted that an unknown third party accessed the premises and caused the damage. That explanation is speculative and unsupported by any evidence. There is no evidence before the Tribunal of unauthorised access, a break-in, or any other circumstance consistent with such an event. I reject that submission.

[35] Where there is a conflict in the evidence, I prefer the contemporaneous photographic evidence and the installer's statutory declaration, supported by the agent's evidence. That evidence is objective, consistent and supported by the physical characteristics of the damage. By contrast, the tenant's explanation is speculative and unsupported by evidence.

[36] The tenant submitted the damage may have been caused by vegetation or by a member of the public entering the property after she vacated. The evidence does not support those possibilities, and the lessor is not obliged to prove its claim beyond reasonable doubt.

The two-door garage to the property is positioned at a right-angle to the house. There is a sweeping driveway from the street that curves into the garage, with the result that the distance from the garage to the street is two to four boat lengths.

[37] It was uncontroversial that the tenant stored her boat on the property up until 17 October 2025 (Ms Mills had evidence that it was moved and stored elsewhere from 17 October 2025, in response to a no-longer pressed assertion by the landlord that the boat was still there on 21 October 2025 but that was the date the photograph was sent to the landlord not the date it was taken).

[38] Contemporaneous photographs show the tenant's boat positioned close to the newly installed garage door.

[39] The photographs show no leaf litter or tree debris below the dent and the driveway is clear.

[40] For a member of the public to cause the damage, they would have needed to deliberately enter clearly private property, reverse along the long, curved driveway and strike the garage door with a tow ball or boat skeg. I consider that scenario implausible and reject it.

[41] Further, the tenant's explanation would require the damage to have occurred on 19 or 20 October 2025, after the bond cleaners, gardeners and removalists engaged by the tenant attended the premises on 18 October 2025. I consider that scenario unlikely and unsupported by the evidence.

[42] On the balance of probabilities, I find that the damage occurred during the tenancy while the tenant remained in possession of the premises.

[43] I further find that the damage was caused either by the tenant or by a person permitted or engaged by the tenant to attend the premises If the damage was caused by someone other than the tenant personally, such as bond cleaner, gardener or removalists, it was caused by a person whose presence at the property was authorised by, and the responsibility of, the tenant.

[44] I therefore, find on the balance of probabilities, that the tenant did not return the premises in substantially the same condition as they were on 9 October 2025, fair wear and tear excepted.

[45] The landlord's evidence establishes that the garage door was newly installed and undamaged on 9 October 2025.

[46] There is no evidence of unauthorised access to the premises, and I have rejected the tenant's speculative suggestion that a member of the public or vegetation caused the damage after 17 October 2025.

[47] I therefore find that the tenant failed to return the premises in substantially the same condition as they were on 9 October 2025, fair wear and tear excepted. The damage to the door occurred during the tenancy and was caused by the tenant or by a person whose presence at the premises was authorised by the tenant and not by the landlord.

[48] I accept the installer's evidence that the garage door cannot be repaired and requires replacement. I am satisfied that replacement of the garage door was necessary and that the claimed amount of $2,200.00 (less GST) is reasonable.

[49] Accordingly, the landlord has established, on the balance of probabilities, an entitlement to recover the reasonable cost of replacing the garage door.

[50] Rule 83 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules restricts recoverable costs in "minor civil disputes" to the filing fee. A claim under the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) falls within the scope of a "tenancy matter" and is therefore subject to this limitation.

[51] The tenant herself produced, and waived privilege in a Calderbank offer and a putting the landlord on notice regarding costs.

[52] I am satisfied that the tenant should pay the filing fee of $158.90.

[53] The Tribunal orders that the respondent, Rebecca Amy Ryan-Mills, pay the lessor the total sum of $2,348.22 (no GST), itemised as follows:

• Rent to 17 October 2025: $185.71
• Replacement key: $3.61
• Door replacement: $2,000.00
• Filing fee: $158.90