The landlords' agent had ticked the relevant box on the Form 9 notice of termination, but did not include any further particulars of the ground. The landlords' agent argued that in a case of this kind, further particulars should not be required because they were self-evident.

The Tribunal found that while only ticking the relevant box on a Form 9 notice of termination may on occasion, be adequate for the purposes of the particulars of the ground required by section 91(e) RTA, it would usually be prudent for a landlord to include further particulars.

The Tribunal found that the landlords were not entitled to rely on the particular ground nominated on the Form 9 notice of termination because an earlier notice of termination served for rent arrears was ineffectual, and therefore could not be relied on for this notice of termination and there was no other basis on which the notice of termination could be served.

The Tribunal discussed the difference between the requirements of Section 91(1)(e) RTA and the requirements of section 91(1)(ea) RTA.

The Tribunal stated that the correct approach in deciding whether or not a notice of termination served under section 83A RTA (ie a Form 9) is valid, is to consider:

• Whether or not the landlord is entitled to rely on the ground identified; and
• Whether the notice of termination complies with the requirements of the RTA.

Internal review - Residential tenancy - Landlord application - Termination and vacant possession - Prescribed ground - Notice of termination - Validity - Expiry of fixed term tenancy

Legislation Interpretation Act 2021 s 52

Residential Tenancies Act 1995 ss 79A, 80, 81, 83, 83A, 87, 91

Residential Tenancies Regulations 2010 regs 14, 15, 16

South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 ss 70, 83

Ms Levesque, Raine & Horne Gawler, appeared for the applicants

1. This is an application for the internal review of an order made by the Tribunal on 30 June 2025 in matter number 2025/SH006481 (the original Order).
2. In the original Order, the Tribunal dealt with an application by the applicant landlords seeking an order for vacant possession of the property at Munno Para West (the property), due to the expiry of the fixed term tenancy on 30 May 2025.
3. The Tribunal dismissed the application on the basis that the notice of termination (the Form 9) served by the landlords did not comply with the requirements of the Residential Tenancies Act 1995 (the RTA).
4. The applicants disagree with the original Order and they have sought a review.
5. 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 SACAT Act requires that on review, the Tribunal must make the correct or preferable decision taking into account the evidence available to the Tribunal at the original hearing, giving appropriate weight to the original Order, and taking into account any other evidence the Tribunal considers is relevant and appropriate to take into account in the course of the review. An application for internal review necessarily includes an application for leave.

1. I tried to phone the respondent tenant Ms Conroy, twice at the outset of the hearing, and I left a message on her voice mail after the first call. She did not answer on either occasion and she has not contacted the Tribunal. I am satisfied she was served with notice of the hearing. I proceeded in her absence.
2. The applicants were represented by their agent, Ms Levesque, in these proceedings. Ms Levesque has provided further documentary evidence in the course of the review. I consider that evidence is useful to me in making my decision and so I will exercise my discretion under section 70(4) SACAT Act to accept the evidence.

1. The tenancy was for a fixed term of one year. The fixed term was due to expire on 30 May 2025.
2. The landlords have served multiple notices of breach during the tenancy:
   • A Form 5 served on 30 August 2024 for an outstanding water invoice of $209.29. The notice required payment of the invoice by 6 September 2024 or vacant possession by 13 September 2024.
   • A Form 5 served on 18 November 2024 for an outstanding water invoice of $209.29. The notice required payment of the invoice by 26 November 2024 or vacant possession by 4 December 2024.
   • A Form 5 served on 20 November 2024 for rent claiming an amount of $1,044.95 to be paid by 28 November 2024 or vacant possession by 29 November 2024.
   • A Form 5 served on 5 December 2024 for unrestrained dogs when an inspection was to occur.
   • A Form 5 served on 10 December 2024 for rent claiming an amount of $1,045.94 to be paid by 18 December 2024 or vacant possession by 19 December 2024.
   • A Form 5 served on 20 March 2025 for unpaid water invoices being a total of $807.35 to be paid by 28 March 2025 or vacant possession by 4 April 2025.
3. On 5 December 2024 the landlords made an application to the Tribunal for vacant possession on the basis of rent arrears. The Tribunal conducted a hearing on 24 December 2024, and at the request of the landlords' agent, made an order allowing the tenant to remain in the property provided she made payments.[1] The basis of the application to the Tribunal was the Form 5 served for rent on 20 November 2024. The Tribunal found that Form 5 notice of breach, to be valid.
4. The Tribunal conducted two further hearings in relation to rent because the tenant failed to adhere to the payment plans contained in Tribunal orders.[2]
5. On 26 March 2025, the landlord served a Form 9 notice of termination giving the tenant 60 days' notice that the tenancy would not be renewed.
6. The following box was ticked on the notice of termination:

"You have been given 2 notices for breaching the residential tenancy agreement for the same or substantially similar breach, and you have breached the agreement a third time in the same or substantially similar manner as set out in the first 2 notices."

7. No further particulars of the ground of termination were given in the notice of termination. The landlords then sought an order for vacant possession on the basis of the notice of termination.
8. In the original Order, the Tribunal found that the tenancy had not been terminated by the Form 9 notice of termination, because the notice of termination did not provide reasonable particulars of the ground of termination as required by section 91(1)(e) RTA, and the landlords were not entitled to rely on the tenant's breach for rent because the first notice of breach about rent, was ineffectual.

1. Section 83A RTA states that a landlord may by notice of termination, terminate a tenancy for a fixed term at the end of the fixed term on any of the grounds prescribed by the regulations, but 60 days' notice must be given.
2. Regulation 16(1) of the regulations made under the RTA, sets out 16 grounds for termination of a fixed term tenancy under section 83A RTA. The relevant ground for this application is:

(i) has been given 2 notices under section 80 of the Act which both specified the same or substantially similar breach by the tenant; and

(ii) has breached the residential tenancy agreement on a third occasion in the same or substantially similar manner as specified in the 2 notices.

1. Section 91(1) RTA states the requirements for a notice of termination served under the RTA by a landlord. They are that the notice must:

(a) be in writing and in the prescribed form; and > > (b) be signed by the landlord or agent; and > > (c) state the address of the premises subject to the tenancy; and

(d) state the day on which the tenant is required to give up vacant possession of the premises; and

(e) specify and give reasonable particulars of the ground of termination; and

(ea) in the case of a notice given on a ground prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph, be accompanied by written evidence, as approved by the Commissioner from time to time, which supports the ground for giving the notice; and

(f) include any further information required by regulation.

1. The Commissioner has published a fact sheet entitled Terminating a Tenancy. That fact sheet sets out the written evidence to be provided for the purposes of section 91(1)(ea) RTA, where a notice of termination is served for any of the following reasons:
   • possession is required for demolition;
   • possession is required to carry out repairs or renovations that cannot be carried out conveniently while the tenant remains in the property;
   • possession is required for occupation by the landlord, their spouse, child, parent or the spouse of a child or parent;
   • a contract for sale of the premises has been entered into under which the landlord needs to give vacant possession to the new owner.

The fact sheet does not contain any information about the requirement for a Form 9 notice of termination to include reasonable particulars of a ground of termination (ie the requirement contained in section 91(1)(e) RTA).

1. The Form 9 notice of termination contains a box on the second page which may be completed by the landlord, and which refers to particulars of the ground of termination.

1. Ms Levesque made the following submissions on behalf of the landlords:
   • For this particular ground of termination, it is unreasonable to require a landlord to provide any further particulars of the ground of termination as the statement adjacent to the ticked box is self-explanatory.
   • The tenant should be well aware of the particulars of the ground relied on for the notice of termination because the notices of breach have all been served on her, there is no dispute that she has received the notices of breach; and the notices about rent arrears, and the debt for water invoices, have been referred to in the various Tribunal orders (which have also been served on her).
   • The fact sheet published by the Commissioner is misleading because the fact sheet does not make it clear that the requirement for reasonable particulars of the ground to be included in the notice of termination applies to all grounds, and there is no guidance in the form as to what information would satisfy the requirement. The fact sheet implies that a landlord only needs to provide the information contained in it in relation to those grounds referred to in paragraph 19 above.
   • The training that has been provided to property managers about this did not make the situation clear either.
   • While she agrees now that the first notice of breach for rent is ineffectual, this occurred because Ms Conroy made a payment which was received into their ledger after the Form 5 notice of breach had been issued, and they were unaware of this issue until Member Harvey identified it in the hearing he conducted on 30 June 2025.
   • The Tribunal should take into account that the Tribunal itself previously (ie in another hearing, before the hearing conducted by Member Harvey) found that the first notice of breach for rent was valid (in matter number 2024/SH011519) and so she submitted that it was reasonable for the landlords to proceed as they did.

1. I will determine whether or not the original Order is the correct or preferable order, by considering the following questions:

b) Should the Tribunal make an order for vacant possession?

Question 1: Is the Form 9 notice of termination valid?

1. I will approach this question by considering two issues:
   • Are the landlords entitled to rely on the ground of termination identified in the Form 9 notice of termination?
   • Does the Form 9 notice of termination comply with the requirements of section 91(1) RTA?

Issue 1: Are the landlords entitled to rely on the ground of termination identified in the Form 9 notice of termination?

1. The ground on which the landlords sought to rely in their notice of termination, was the service of two previous notices of breach and the landlord being in a position to issue a third notice of breach. The landlords did not specify in the Form 9 notice of termination, whether they were relying on the notices about rent or the notices about outstanding water invoices.

1. In the original Order, Member Harvey found that the landlords were not entitled to rely on the breach for rent because the first notice of breach served on 20 November 2024 was ineffectual. This is the correct approach. A notice of breach will be ineffectual if rent is not two weeks in arrears when the notice is served. This means that at the point when the notice was served, the landlords were not actually entitled to serve the notice of breach. Accordingly, that notice should not be relied on in any proceedings brought against the tenant concerning rent arrears.[3]
2. This approach is consistent with the approach for section 87(1a) RTA which, in summary, allows a landlord to make an application to the Tribunal seeking an order for termination without first serving a notice of termination where the landlord has previously served two notices of breach for rent in the last 12 months, neither notice was ineffectual, and the landlord is in a position where they are entitled to serve a third notice of breach for rent.
3. Therefore, I do not consider that the landlords were entitled to issue the notice of termination under regulation 16(1)(i) on the basis of the breach for rent.
4. However, that ground is not limited to a breach for rent, and allows a landlord to rely on other breaches (which is different from the situation under section 87(1a) RTA). The only other breach on which the landlords could have relied in this matter, is the breach for outstanding water invoices, and so I will consider that in the context of regulation 16(1)(i).

Termination on the basis of outstanding water invoices

1. The landlords served two notices of breach for the same outstanding water invoice of $209.29. Those notices were issued on 30 August 2024 and 18 November 2024.
2. In the review hearing, Ms Levesque said that there had been a water invoice issued in between those two invoices, which had been paid by the tenant. In this situation, the landlords should have applied the amount paid by the tenant towards the first outstanding invoice of 30 August 2024. Any funds remaining from the payment of that invoice should then have been applied to the next invoice. A notice of breach could then have been issued for any amount outstanding for the next invoice. In these circumstances, I do not consider the landlord can rely on the first two notices of breach for water invoices for the purposes of the notice of termination.
3. A further notice of breach for outstanding water invoices was issued on 20 March 2025. The landlords would have been able to rely on this notice, and the first notice of breach for water for the purposes of regulation 16(1)(i) except that there was insufficient time after the invoice issued on 20 March 2025, for the landlords to be in a position to issue another notice of breach, before they served the Form 9 notice of termination.
4. Therefore, I do not consider that the landlords were entitled to issue the notice of termination under regulation 16(1)(i) on the basis of the breach for water invoices.
5. Therefore, I have concluded that the landlords were not entitled to rely on the ground identified in the Form 9 notice of termination. On that basis, I would find that the notice of termination is invalid. Even so, I will consider the second issue in any event.

Issue 2: Does the Form 9 notice of termination comply with the requirements of section 91(1) RTA?

1. The relevant requirements in section 91(1) RTA for the purposes of this matter are:

a) Section 91(1)(e) RTA, which requires that all Form 9 notices of termination, must include reasonable particulars of the ground of termination.

b) Section 91(1)(ea) RTA, which requires that Form 9 notices of termination which rely on any of the grounds contained in regulation 16(1)(a) - (d) (which are the grounds referred to in paragraph 19 above), must include the information specified by the Commissioner. That information is contained on pages two and three in the Commissioner's fact sheet entitled Terminating a tenancy.[4]

1. I accept Ms Levesque's submission that the manner in which the requirements of section 91(1)(e) and section 91(1)(ea) RTA have been dealt with, is confusing. That confusion arises for the following reasons:

• only addresses the requirements of Section 91(1)(ea) RTA;
• does not contain any information about the reasonable particulars of the ground of termination, which are required by section 91(1)(e) RTA;
• does not explain the difference between the requirements of section 91(1)(ea) RTA and section 91(1)(e) RTA.

b) The Form 9 notice of termination does not contain any explanation that even if a landlord is not relying on one of the grounds referred to in paragraph 19 above, they must still include reasonable particulars of the ground they are relying on.

What is meant by the requirement for "reasonable particulars of the ground of termination"?

1. I suggest that a sensible approach is: the landlord must include such particulars as are necessary to provide a reasonable explanation of the ground of termination on which they rely.
2. When deciding what is adequate to meet this requirement, it may be useful for a landlord to bear in mind who will be reading and relying on that information. This will be the tenant - and so the information should be enough for the tenant to understand why their tenancy is being terminated, (which then allows the tenant an opportunity to respond, if the notice is disputed). It will also be the Tribunal - should an application to the Tribunal be necessary, then the Tribunal will review that information to determine whether the requirements of section 91(1) RTA have been met, and if so, whether an order for vacant possession should be made.
3. Unfortunately, the space which is provided on the form for those particulars is small, which tends to imply that one or two sentences will be adequate. There will be matters in which that is clearly not the case. If there is inadequate space on the form, then the landlord should use an annexure.
4. I accept Ms Leveque's submission that merely because section 91(1)(e) RTA requires reasonable particulars of the ground on which the landlord relies, this does not necessarily mean that by ticking a particular box on the form, which has an explanation of the ground beside it, the form will not comply with the requirement of reasonable particulars in section 91(1)(e) RTA.
5. However, I suggest that it would be prudent to include particulars of the ground on which the landlord relies. This does not necessarily have to be a lengthy explanation. For example, if a landlord is relying on the ground contained in regulation 16(1)(i) concerning a breach for rent, I consider that a statement in the Form 9 notice of termination to the following effect would be adequate:

Two notices of breach have been served for rent arrears (see annexed notices) and rent is currently more than 2 weeks in arrears (see annexed rent record).

Provided that the notices of breach and the rent record were annexed to the notice of termination.

1. Due to the confusing circumstances of the notices of breach in this particular matter, I consider it was necessary for further information to be provided in the Form 9 notice of termination, in order for the requirement in section 91(1)(e) RTA to be satisfied.
2. For these reasons, I agree with the decision in the original Order, that the notice of termination is invalid.

Question 2: Even so, should the Tribunal make an order for vacant possession?

1. In the original Order, the Tribunal found that because the notice of termination was invalid, the application should be dismissed.
2. Although this issue was not raised in the original hearing, I will make some observations about the Tribunal's powers to dispense with strict compliance with the requirements of the RTA.
3. The requirements in section 91(1) RTA apply to all notices of termination issued by a landlord under the RTA, not only notices of termination under section 83A RTA.[5] Regulation 14 of the regulations under the RTA states that a landlord must use particular forms for particular notices of termination.
4. The Tribunal has the power to dispense with strict compliance with the requirements for a notice of termination, under section 52 of the Legislation Interpretation Act 2021, which provides:

If a form is prescribed or approved by or for the purposes of an Act or a legislative instrument, a form to the same effect is sufficient provided that deviations from the prescribed or approved form are not calculated to mislead.

And also under section 83 SACAT Act which grants the Tribunal power to "cure irregularities".

1. Clearly, the Tribunal should exercise any such power with caution. In my view, where the Tribunal is dealing with a matter in which a notice of termination does not comply with the strict requirements of the RTA, in deciding whether or not to dispense with compliance with the requirements of the RTA, even if the Tribunal considers that the error in the notice was not intended to mislead, the Tribunal should consider:
   • does the non-compliance impact on the substantial issue being dealt with in the notice (eg whether or not the tenant is in breach);
   • is it likely that the non-compliance will have resulted in a denial of procedural fairness to the tenant;
   • the significance of the consequences for the tenant if non-compliance is waived.
2. It is not uncommon for the Tribunal to receive a notice of termination under section 80 RTA which is non-compliant for one reason or another, and for the Tribunal to exercise its power to waive strict compliance. This is because it is often the case that the error is minor (eg an error about dates), and so the Tribunal will proceed to deal with the application anyway - because the error was unintentional; the tenant will have received the Form 5 notice of breach and the details of the breach will be contained in the Form 5 notice of breach; and the error has not impacted on the issue in dispute in any material way.
3. It has been far less common for the Tribunal to receive a non-compliant notice of termination under section 83A RTA (or section 81 or 83 RTA). It would be unusual for the Tribunal to dispense with strict compliance if the notice of termination did not comply with the requirements of the RTA in these circumstances because the significance of the consequences for the tenant if that is waived, will be significant (they will be required to move out - this is often not a case where the notice is issued under section 80 RTA for example, for a breach for rent because the landlord may be seeking a payment plan only).
4. In this matter I do not consider it would be appropriate to waive strict compliance with the RTA and regulations, (and make an order for vacant possession), because:
   • I have found that the landlords were not entitled to rely either on the breach for rent or the breach for outstanding water invoices; and
   • The notice did not contain reasonable particulars of the breach.
5. In the review hearing, Ms Levesque expressed concern about the consequences of this approach, which are that the tenancy becomes periodic,[6] and the grounds for terminating a periodic tenancy are particularly limited.
6. It is self-evident that the grounds for terminating a periodic tenancy are limited.[7] This is a matter of government policy. However, in such a situation, the landlords should consider all other options available to them.
7. For all of the above reasons, I will affirm the decision under review.

1. The Tribunal grants leave to apply for internal review.
2. The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

[1] This is matter number 2024/SH011519.

[2] The two subsequent orders were made in matter number 2025/SH000262.

[3] Section 80(2)(a) RTA and this is to be distinguished from a situation where a notice of termination is merely invalid - in that case, the invalidity will have arisen due to some relatively minor procedural error which does not affect the fundamental issue of the tenant's breach. In that scenario, a landlord could still rely on the notice of breach for these purposes.

[4] But it is likely that any landlord who was relying on any of the grounds contained in regulation 16(1)(a) - (d), who provided the information stated in the Commissioner's fact sheet, would have provided adequate particulars for the purposes of section 91(1)(e) RTA.

[5] For the purposes of this decision, I have referred to such a notice as a notice of breach - to distinguish between a notice of termination served for a breach as opposed to a notice of termination served to terminate the tenancy at the end of its term, but the RTA refers to all such notices as notices of termination.

[7] See: Section 83 RTA and regulation 15.