Stockton v Gray; Gray v Stockton [2025] NSWCATCD 204 | Case summary

Residential Tenancies Amendment Regulation 2025

Stockton v Gray; Gray v Stockton [2025] NSWCATCD 204 | Case summary | Zoe

[46]

On 13 March 2025 the landlord served a termination notice under s 87 (as it then was) of the Act for "subletting of the Premises for short-term holiday lettings and keeping of pets without approval." (First Termination Notice).
On 26 March 2025 the joint tenants filed a Tribunal application no. 2025/00117096 seeking relief that the First Termination Notice was unfair as the landlord cannot unreasonably refuse them permission to sublet on a general basis, nor refuse pets. (Tenants' First Application). This application was withdrawn on 29 April 2025.
On 29 April 2025 Morgan Williams filed application no. 2025/00163624 (Ms Stockton was subsequently added as applicant), seeking the same relief as the Tenants' First Application plus alleging breach of privacy due to the landlord taking photos of the inside of the Premises without consent (Tenants' Second Application). This application was withdrawn on 29 May 2025.
On 7 May 2025 the landlord served a 14-day termination notice under ss 88 and 89 of the Act for rent arrears which expired on 21 May 2025 (Rent Arrears Termination Notice).
On 26 May 2025, the landlord filed a Tribunal application no. 2025/00201414 seeking termination and possession for unlawful short-term accommodation, unapproved pets and rent arrears of $7,169.64 (Landlord's May Termination Application). The application was withdrawn on 20 June 2025 as rent arrears then owing were substantially paid. Further, the landlord could not proceed on the First Termination Notice (which expired on 27 March 2025) as more than 30 days had elapsed since the date of expiry: s 83(2)(a) and Reg 39(2) of the Residential Tenancies Regulations 2019 (Regulations).
On 27 May 2025, Ms Stockton (solely) filed an application against the landlord no. 2025/201633 seeking similar relief to Ms Stockton's Application plus additional orders under the domestic violence provisions in the Act (s 105B) to: "remove Morgan Williams from the lease and to continue the lease for my safety due to AVO and to eradicate previous lease problems by Morgan Williams (owing of rent/short term lets over Xmas/NY). Permission to sublet to friend as financial support person and to keep my dog as emotional support pet."
Those proceedings were withdrawn on 27 June 2025.

[57]

Under 38(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NCAT Act), the Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence and may inquire into and inform itself on any matter in such manner as it thinks fit, subject to the rules of natural justice.
Given the ADVO and mindful of a potential conflict of interest between the evidence of Ms Stockton and Mr Williams, I asked the tenants whether the evidence filed was joint evidence and they both said yes.
I also inquired of the parties as to whether the ADVO was still in place. Both tenants initially said it was not. Mr Williams said the Police had applied for a DV order, not Lucy and it had been dismissed by the Court.
However, both tenants then said there was an associated Police charge/DV matter still to be determined that had been adjourned to 30 October and until then they did not wish to breach any Local Court orders by being together. Mr Williams said it was a "process" that they had to "ride out" and that he was confident it would also be dismissed.
I asked Morgan William whether he was living at the Premises and he said he was not and had been living elsewhere since around 15 July 2025 and acknowledged he was unable to do so according to the terms of the ADVO, but that he intended to move back in after the criminal proceedings were resolved. He said he still had all his possessions at the Premises.
I asked Lucy Stockton who was living at the Premises, and she said, "just me".
I note no order was made at the conciliation joining Morgan Williams either as a co-applicant or respondent in Ms Stockton's Application, despite both tenants being present at that conciliation.
I note the tenants sought similar relief jointly in two earlier proceedings, however they pre-dated the July ADVO.
Whilst her earlier (withdrawn) application sought relief under the domestic violence provisions in s 105B of the Act, Ms Stockton's current application does not seek any such orders, such as removing Mr Williams from the lease.
When I asked Morgan Williams, he said he agreed to the orders sought by Ms Stockton in her current application.
Mr Francica informed me that the tenants had told him they were back together.
Pursuant to s 44(1) of the NCAT Act, the Tribunal may order that a person be joined as a party to proceedings if the Tribunal considers that the person should be joined as a party. That is, the Tribunal can do so of its own motion. There is no requirement of consent to being joined as a party.
Further, under s 188 of the Act the Tribunal has broad powers. The section provides the Tribunal may, in any proceedings before it under the Act, make (c) any ancillary order the Tribunal thinks appropriate.
Any orders I make in Ms Stockton's Application may have the effect of altering the rights and obligations under RTA.
Although he is not actively seeking the orders, Mr William has stated he agrees to the orders. He is accruing rights and will gain a benefit from any orders made in Ms Stockton's favour, such as extra rent from a subtenant, even if he does not wish to exercise such rights.
Conversely, Mr Williams will also have obligations as a result of any orders I make, being jointly liable to the landlord for the actions of the subtenant.
Taking into account all of the above, I consider it appropriate to make an order joining Morgan Williams as a second applicant.

[91]

Further, even if Part A had been completed correctly, i.e. submitted by both Ms Stockton and Ms Williams, Ms Stockton has filed her Tribunal application too early, that is, before the 21 days had expired. It could not be said that there was non-compliance by the landlord by his failure to respond and submit Part B as required by s 73D, as the time in which he was entitled to do so had not ended.
Ms Stockton submits she was effectively notified by the Agent consent had been refused when she received the June Termination Notice four days later, on 21 June 2025, which alleged breaches concerning, inter alia, keeping of pets without approval. She was already aware of the grounds for refusal as the Agent had given her on 3 June a copy of the House Rules banning pets. Consequently, in effect she submits she was entitled to file her Tribunal application when she did.
That might be so that she was on notice, and the question could be asked: does it matter if the 21 days had not expired and a Form B was not submitted, if the tenants were aware the landlord was always going to refuse on the basis of the House Rules?
In my view it does matter. Ms Stockton cannot circumvent the process in s 73C or second guess what the landlord would have done if both tenants had made a valid application for consent in accordance with the section. The landlord may have exercised his right to lodge a Form B in accordance with s 73D. In my view, the likely scenario where the tenants could have filed a Tribunal application earlier than 21 days was if the Part B had been submitted by the landlord within the 21 day period refusing consent.
The fact that the landlord further failed to complete Part B after the 21-day period expired does not, in my view, alter the position that there was no basis to file a Tribunal application under s 73G on 4 July 2025.
In all of the circumstances, I find that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the application under s 73G and I am required to dismiss that part of Ms Stockton's Application.
If I am wrong on the jurisdictional point, I have considered the grounds upon which the landlord's refusal has been based in my Findings below and have determined that the House Rules are not an applicable ground within s 73F. However, that does alter my finding that the Tribunal has no power to make an order for consent as the condition precedent in s 73C had not been satisfied by the tenants.
If they have indeed reconciled, there is nothing to stop the tenants submitting a fresh Fair Trading pet application form to the landlord in accordance with s 73C.
At the hearing, the parties were encouraged to reach a resolution to resolve the dispute, but this did not eventuate.
Hopefully this may still occur.

[92]

Claims for breach must be brought within three months of the party becoming aware of the breach: s 190 and Reg 39(9) of Regulations.
Arguably, the landlord is out of time to bring a claim for breach regarding Ms Stockton's dog. The breach commenced when the tenants moved in with Pepsi without consent. At the start of the tenancy Pepsi stayed at the Premises some of the time. However, the cause of action is not complete until the landlord becomes aware of the breach. The Agent was informed on 24 January 2025 and the landlord may have been aware prior to that date. The application should have been brought by 24 April 2025 at the latest and the most recent application relied upon was not brought until 13 September 2025.
However the landlord alleges the pet breaches by the tenants are ongoing and continuing and have not been remediated and remain the subject of continuous complaint, as Pepsi is still at the Premises. In these circumstances, Appeal Panel cases have ruled that time runs not from the date of the first occurrence, but from three months of the last of that continuum: see Hundt v Kong [2018] NSWCATAP 156 at [27]- [43] and Haggerty v Dooley [2021] NSWCATAP 363 at [29].
Adopting those principles, I find the landlord's claim is within time. If not, I would extend time under s 41 of the NCAT Act by applying the principles in Jackson v NSW Land and Housing Corporation [2014] NSWCAT 22 at [22], namely the delay is not lengthy, the landlord had taken earlier action (earlier termination notices were served on 13 March 2025 and Tribunal applications have been brought on 26 May 2025 and 9 July 2025), the Agent was attempting to work with the tenants, the owner has a fairly arguable case and no real prejudice is suffered by the tenants who have their own related action on foot.
As to the subletting, the landlord again is out of time as I find he was put on notice of potential unauthorised subleasing around 24 January 2025. As the unlawful subletting and other related breaches such as listing on third party platforms are alleged to be continuing, I find the same principles of continuing breach apply.

[96]

Mr Francica and the landlord, Mr Gray made oral submissions.
Initially Mr Gray allowed the tenants to sublet the spare room of the Premises to a third occupant with written consent.
On a general basis, Mr Francica said he received requests to sublet rooms from tenants all the time and as long as he received proper written applications from the proposed occupant with supporting documentation, they were generally approved by landlords.
In January 2025, Mr Francica said he started to receive complaints from other residents in the building about the Premises being rented out in its entirety to holiday renters.
The landlord relies on a bundle of 36 reviews on Airbnb from December 2024 to March 2025 said to have been placed by various people in response to Lucy Stockton hosting the Premises on Airbnb under the alias "Loz" (pp 54-65).
One review posted by a person named Carol Lisa in December 2024 (p 63) states: "Morgan and Lucy are lovely hosts". Loz posted a response in January 2025 which said: "So happy you had a great xmas & stay!"
On or about 18 December 2024, Lucy Stockton placed an advertisement on Facebook Marketplace to let one room of the Premises. The post listed "short term Maroubra beachfront flat available NOW til 10th Jan." Share flat with one Aussie girl who will be out a lot over Xmas & NY. $550 a week/$650 couple. (L1, pp 45-47). The search undertaken by the owner on 23 April 2025 records it had been listed 18 weeks ago (18 December 2024).
Another Airbnb review in January 2025 by a person named Seong Ian states: "Great place, co-host Lucy and her pets checked us in and they were lovely. Thank you Loz for facilitating and hosting my last minute booking for New Year celebrations." (p 60).
Mr Gray believes Lucy Stockton was never living at the Premises and well before the July ADVO, the tenants were engaging in unlawful holiday letting for commercial purposes and charging inflated rent.
Mr Francica submits it is not a single isolated incident and the Premises are a fabulous property to carry out holiday letting.
Mr Gray attested that the first person who stayed was Kaz Keay, who happened to be a former work colleague of his. Ms Keay told him she had found a place advertised on Airbnb under the profile "Loz" which was a different property to the Premises (p 65). Kaz Keay contacted "Loz" whom she discovered was in fact Lucy Stockton. Ms Stockton asked Ms Keay to come to the Premises at Maroubra, which is how Kaz came to be renting at the Premises and how it came to the owner's attention.
On 21 January 2025, the owner of unit 4, Kim Cawthorne wrote to the owner of unit 8 (Maria Klunder) and copying in the Company Title Manager stating: "I also met Michael [Gray] the owner of the apartment and asked if he was attending the meeting. It seems to be turning into a backpacker paradise with tenants subletting their apartments." (pp 146-147).
On 23 January 2025 Mr Francica sent an email to the tenants (p 119/34, L1) concerning reports he had received from the Company Title Manager and other residents in the building subletting the apartment in its entirety. He told them: "There are reports of short term lettings being run in the unit..." He requested a meeting with both tenants.
On 24 January 2025, Ms Stockton sent an email in response and apologised for not disclosing the details of her flatmate "Kaz" who had moved out a few weeks prior and was being replaced by "a friend of a friend from Canberra". No name or details were provided for Kaz's replacement.
Mr Francica met with Morgan Williams a few days later to discuss the complaints, which was denied. Mr Francica said he was prepared to give the tenants "the benefit of the doubt" about the holiday letting. He said words to the effect to Mr Williams: "get one single person to put on the lease or give me their details and I can make a note of them".
On 4 February 2025, the Company Title Manager sent a letter to all shareholders, occupiers and leasing agents stating subletting of apartments is not permitted.
On 4 February Ms Stockton sent an email to Mr Francica advising that "Puja", the flatmate from Canberra had left and her friend Jordyn was moving over from New Zealand and would move in on 8 February and stay "long term".
On 17 February 2025 Mr Francica responded and asked Ms Stockton for a copy of Jordyn's ID, mobile and email address. On 8 March he sent an email requesting Jordyn's details again. The tenants did not respond.
It was not until 12 March 2025 that Ms Stockton sent Mr Francica an email advising "Jordyn is great! She's actually headed back to NZ for a while with her work". Ms Stockton still did not provide details for Jordyn.
Mr Francica submitted that he was doing his best to assist the tenants but in the meantime he and Mr Gray continued to receive complaints from the residents and the Company Title Manager about the tenants subletting to multiple people.
In March 2025, "Ellen" posted a review on Airbnb, "Loz and co-host Sarah were responsive and friendly during the stay... Another guest asked if I was Loz when they arrived and clearly hadn't been informed that Loz did not live at the property or that the other room were rent out."
Mr Gray told the tenants he was "revok[ing]his approval for a third occupant" (p 31). He instructed Mr Francica to issue a termination notice.
In a text message dated 12 March 2025 from Puja to Kate, the daughter of Maria Klunder owner of unit 8, Puja states:

[98]

On 13 March 2025, Mr Francica served a termination notice on both tenants for subletting and pets, requiring vacant possession by 27 March 2025. In his covering email he said: "various ads... have been spotted on flatmate finders and similar sites." He attached a link to a Flatmate Finders advertisement for the Premises he had discovered online and requested that all online advertisements be removed.
The tenants continued to breach the RTA by advertising on third party flatmate platforms without consent.
A search of "Loz air bnb Maroubra" on 23 April 2025 states: "2 months hosting... this home is right on Maroubra beach. Furry friends welcome..."
Another listing by Lucy Stockton on the Facebook page, "Bondi Local Loop" on 21 May (L2, p 16) shows photos of the Premises and states: "2 bedroom beachfront apartment lease takeover - 4 months $795 a week all bills incl".
On 24 May 2025 after receiving many emails and texts from Ms Stockton concerning allegations of domestic violence by Mr Williams, Ms Stockton telling him that a "friend" or "friends" were able to move in and requesting Mr Williams be removed from the lease, Mr Francica replied by text: "The undue stress inflicted on Michael by the rental default situation and uncertainty surrounding comings/goings from the apartment has left him very anxious, frustrated..."
The tenants were also in significant rent arrears. As at 29 April 2025 they owed one month of $3,584.82 (p 107). On 7 May 2025 the Agent served the Rent Arrears Termination Notice and a Tribunal application was filed on 26 May. As of 28 May 2025 they owed two months rent over $7,000 (p 99).
On Wednesday, 28 May 2025 Mr Francica emailed Ms Stockton: "As you are aware the account is in arrears. Michael has... previously highlighted concerns including subletting and keeping pets without approval, have pushed him towards seeking vacant possession of the property in his pursuit for stability."
The relationship between the tenants was acrimonious and their explanation of events was conflicting. Each blamed the other for failing to pay rent. On 18 July Mr Francica received an email from Morgan Williams (p 24) reporting the locks had been changed and he had been locked out.
The breaches are ongoing. The tenants are continuing to rent out both or one of the rooms without consent on a short term basis. The landlord relies on a bundle of advertisements said to have been placed by Lucy Stockton on Flatmate Finders from August to October 2025 under the name of "Jayde".
A Flatmate Finders advertisement for a large queen-sized bedroom was listed around July/August 2025 (pp 17-23) and states: "Date available from 2 August 2025 for 1 week to 3 months". The rent is $400 per week singles and couples $550 per week. The person who lives in the home is described as "Jayde". The advertisement contains a contact mobile number having the last 3 digits of Ms Stockton's mobile. Under the heading "description of pets", it states: "Pepsi". Under the heading "about occupants", it states: "Lucy - graphic designer and dog walker. I have a little loveable pooch and also mind extra ones @wknds!"
Another Flatmate Finders advertisement has a large queen-sized bedroom available from 7 September 2025 for 1 month.
The most recent Flatmate Finders advertisement was listed around October 2025 and states two bedrooms are available to rent from 19 October 2025 - one medium bedroom is available for 6 months at $550 for singles or $650 for couples and a large queen-sized bedroom is available for 1 month at $550 for singles or $680 for couples. The phone contact is Ms Stockton's mobile number and "Jayde" is described as the person "moving out". "Lucy" is stated to be the occupant. An earlier Flatmate Finders advertisement has the same two rooms available from 9 October 2025, except the rent for the smaller room is less: $450 for singles and $550 for couples.
The tenants were seeking to profit from subletting the entire Premises. The monthly rent the tenants paid was $3,584.82 which was roughly $890 a week and the tenants were attempting to obtain $1,200 from leasing out both rooms.
The tenants were "super hosts" and operating a commercial enterprise on multiple platforms for both the Premises and other properties. During the tenancy Lucy Stockton placed advertisements on Facebook Marketplace to lease out rooms in at least four other properties.
The owner relies on a bundle of Facebook postings from April to May 2025 (pp 16 & 44-53). A search undertaken by the owner on Friday, 16 May 2025 records [xxx], Coogee was only listed "over a week ago" and is available to rent on 14 October (L1, p 52-53). Another property, [xxx], Bondi Junction was available Saturday, 11 May (L1, p 51). A third property, [xxx], Maroubra (listed a year ago) (L1, p 49-50) does not specify the availability.
Mr Francica submits the tenants had so many listings for properties to rent that they mixed up properties. One example was a Facebook post by Lucy Stockton on or about 16 April 2025, stating: "Flatmate wanted" which records it was listed over a week ago and is "available now" and attached photos of the balcony and living room of the Premises, but specified a different address ([redacted]) with only 1 bedroom (L1, p 44 & 48).
The landlord relies on a letter from former occupant Charlotte Edwards dated 30 September 2025 which Ms Edwards emailed to Mr Francica on 2 October. Ms Edwards states:

[106]

Pepsi is a female cross toy Poodle (Moodle) who weighs about 5kg and is 5 years old. She is non shedding and is fully toilet trained and up to date with her vaccinations. She is very suitable for a small unit. She has had her since she was a pup and bought her in 2020 from a breeder in Singleton.
She takes Pepsi with her everywhere.
Prior to moving into the Premises, she lived in [xxx], Coogee with her ex-partner with whom she shared Pepsi.
When she moved in to the Premises, she was not informed by the Agent or owner that pets were not allowed in the Building.
On 24 January 2025 she sent an email to Mr Francica informing him about Pepsi who she said was at the Premises with her some of the time. She told Mr Francica the owner was aware and did not object.
She is now the sole carer for Pepsi.
The letter from the Company Title Manager dated 4 February 2025 to all shareholders, occupiers and leasing agents requiring dog owners to clean up dog mess and keep their dogs on leads, would indicate that dogs are allowed in the building.
She works for herself in marketing and is a dog walker on weekends, she does not bring back any other dogs to the Premises.
Pepsi is only small so she could not have done the large faeces left on the common veranda, as reported by another resident. Pepsi is only on the common terrace some of the time and she only goes to the toilet on grass and there is no grass at the Premises, only on the nature strip outside the Building. She always supervises Pepsi and never leaves her alone and she goes everywhere with her.
Mr Francica sent her the pro forma Alldis and Cox pet application form, again indicating there is a precedent for animals at the Building. She and Jayde completed both sets of forms and emailed them to the Agent on 17 June and to the Manager on 3 July 2025.
Neither the Agent nor Manager responded to her applications within 21 days and she submits they were automatically approved.
The House Rules are old rules, not applicable and not enforced.
Other occupants in the building have cats and dogs, namely the occupants of units 4 and 7, who currently each have a cat. The occupant of unit 6 used to have a cat and dog but moved out. She relies on text messages with a former tenant of the Premises, Mr Csaba Kiss, who states he had two dogs and the owner was aware.
She relies on an (undated) character reference from a former occupant of unit 3, Mr Anthony Marcar who attests to Pepsi being "loved by the whole block."
She relies on the May letter from Sydney Women's Domestic Violence Court Service which attests to Pepsi providing her emotional support.
Her treating psychologist, Dr Sabine Merz of Cambia Psychology has provided a report dated 3 September 2025 which attests to Ms Stockton's anxiety and stress and states: "Denying her the ability to keep this companion animal may have a negative impact on her mental health and emotional stability."

[111]

On 21 May she sent a text message to Mr Francica stating: "could u pls reply to my email re a lease transfer? I've got friends interested for 4 months to take it furnished while I am away... I want to come back to continue the lease on my own." (p 130).
On 22 May she sent a text message to Mr Francica: "the domestic violence situation has been hard & the AVO & Morgan has agreed to move out but he's still there..."
On 22 May she sent a further text message to Mr Francica saying she had a "friend who will take the lease for 3 months while I am away, so I can leave my things there." (p 134).
On 23 May she sent an email to Mr Francica: "I realised I had not provided you any documents to support my situation and the reason I had to move out. Again I stress I need to keep the lease. I have friends who can take over the lease or sublet from me whilst I am away. We can make it all official with an agreement. I plan to be away mid-June - mid-September visiting my family in England (3 months).." (p 93).
On 24 May she sent several text messages to Mr Francica: "We will be sending everything over today. Did you further speak to Michael about the situation? Please advise me of the arrears so Jayde and I can sort the funds." And in another text: "This is why Jayde and I who both need a safe home want to fix up the arrears & continue the lease...There will be no comings and goings. Jayde and I would just like a normal life & place to come home to."
On 26 May Mr Francica responded: "With respect to your shared tenancy, there are sadly many unresolved matters and under directions received from Michael, an NCAT application has been lodged."
On 26 May she emailed Mr Francica: "Please get onto Michael I have a friend who wants to go on the lease and we can pay him what he is owed. Morgan will be moving out before the new NCAT hearing date..." (p 91).
On 27 May 2025 she filed a further Tribunal application seeking relief under the domestic violence provisions of the Act.
On 30 May after receiving advice from the Tenants' Advice and Advocacy Service, she sent an email to Mr Francica about making a formal application to sublet and to have a pet.
On 3 June, Mr Francica sent her tenancy and pet application forms.
On or about 7 June Jayde moved in.
On 13 June she responded to Mr Francica and said she had been away visiting family and advised "Morgan is moving out this or next weekend." (p 88).
On 14 June she sent an email to Mr Francica: "...Morgan has not paid since I had to leave due to the DV and AVO situation... Jayde and I long for a safe home and a normal life..." On 14 June she sent another email to Mr Francica providing the letter from Sydney Women's Domestic Violence Court Service.
After she emailed Jayde's tenancy application form to Mr Francica and the owner on 14 June 2025, she did not get a response. On 17 June Jayde sent an email to Mr Francica chasing him up, but no response was received.
In the meantime the arrears were cleared on about 19 June.
Instead of a response to the application, the tenants received another termination notice on 21 June 2025.
She gave oral evidence she did not stay at the Premises for the following periods:

[119]

As required by cl 35.1 and the Special Lease Condition in the Annexure to the RTA and s 74(1) of the Act, the tenants must obtain the landlord's written permission to sublet any part of the property.
If a tenant does this without written consent, they are breaching the terms of the tenancy agreement.
Ms Stockton submits the people who stayed (apart from Jayde Turner-Ledwidge) were neither subtenants, nor occupants and merely friends and as such, the tenants are not required to obtain consent.
Alternatively, she says the tenants are not in breach as at the time they entered into the RTA they were given permission to rent out the second bedroom and they did not believe they needed to seek and obtain further consent from the landlord.
Once the tenants realised Mr Francica on behalf of the owner required identification of the people who stayed, she then provided details of their friends who were intending to stay.
Alternatively, the tenants submit they are no longer in breach as they have remedied the breach. Following receipt of the First Termination Notice on 13 March 2025, Ms Stockton then made a formal application on 14 June 2025 for a long-term sub tenant, namely Ms Turner-Ledwidge.
In summary, there were six known sub tenants introduced to the Premises by the tenants during the tenancy period to date, who mostly stayed at different times (albeit with some overlapping), without prior written approval. I was not told of the surnames of some of those occupants (or correct spelling of those surnames). Without any disrespect intended, I have used Christian names in describing some of those occupants. They were: Kaz Keay, Puja Nagaria, Jordyn, Rosie, Jayde Turner-Ledwidge and Charlotte Edwards. I find there were likely more.
Even though no subtenancy agreements were tendered, there is evidence some of the occupants were paying rent (Puja Nagaria, Jayde Turner-Ledwidge and Charlotte Edwards). The advertisements placed on Facebook and Flatmate Finders required rent to be paid. This indicates to me the occupants were more than just friends, contrary to what Ms Stockton asserts. On that basis I infer that all occupants paid rent and I intend to treat them as subtenants for the purposes of ss 74 and 75 of the Act.
The correspondence tendered indicates Kaz Keay, Puja Nagaria, Jordyn and Rosie each stayed at the Premises at different times up to May 2025 when one or both tenants were also living at the Premises.
It is unclear if approval was obtained for Kaz Keay.
The correspondence indicates Ms Stockton only informed the Agent about Puja Nagaria on 24 January 2025 after Ms Nagaria had already moved in to replace Ms Keay. Ms Stockton said in an email to Mr Francica: "sorry if we did not communicate this information previously with you."
On 4 February 2025, Ms Stockton advised Mr Francica that Puja Nagaria had left and Jordyn was moving in four days later. The tenants failed to provide identification details for Jordyn which were twice requested by Mr Francica.
What is apparent from the Agent's correspondence with Ms Stockton in the early months of the tenancy is that whilst the landlord permitted the tenants to partially sublet to a third occupant and the Agent was aware that a third person was occupying the Premises, the landlord still required the tenants to comply with the provisions of the RTA and the Act. Meaning that the obligation still rested with the tenants to seek the landlord's written approval and referral back to the landlord as contemplated by cl 35.1 and the Annexure to the RTA and s 74(1) of the Act: Abdel-Messih v Dai [2017] NSWCATAP 20 at [18-19]. I find the tenants were clearly aware of this obligation as Ms Stockton apologised for not doing so.
It makes sense that the landlord would reasonably require the names and personal details to carry out a tenant data base search, which is one of the permissible grounds upon which consent to a subtenancy may be withheld under s 75(3), see Wang v Abdel-Messih; Abdel-Messih v Wang [2017] NSWCATCD 70 at [62] and Abdel-Messih v Wang [2018] NSWCATAP 60 at [39-40].
I find there is nothing objectively unreasonable about requiring an applicant for a subtenancy to verify their identity and residency status.
I find that on becoming aware of a potential breach, Mr Francica warned the tenants during a meeting he had at the Premises with Morgan Williams in late January 2025 of the breach and advised Mr Williams that if it was not remedied a notice of termination would be served.
I find that the tenants took no action to remedy the breach at that time. Following the meeting, identification details were not provided for Puja Nagaria nor for Jordyn upon specific request made on 17 February and 8 March 2025. I find a breach of cl 35.1, s 74.1 and the Special Lease Condition in the Annexure in relation to Puja Nagaria and Jordyn for the period late January 2025 to early March 2025.
On 13 March 2025 the First Termination Notice was served for the above breaches (and other breaches discussed below).
The tenants continued to fail to seek consent for subletting. There is no evidence the Agent or landlord was aware until after the fact of Rosie staying in April and May 2025. In response to the First Termination Notice, on 16 March the identification of "an extended family member" was emailed to the Agent by Ms Stockton, but the evidence before me does not disclose who that person is or whether it is Rosie (p 129, L1). The next time Rosie was mentioned was on 8 May 2025 when Ms Stockton advised Rosie was staying at the Premises with Mr Williams and Ms Stockon had been forced to leave due to the ADVO.
The documents show Ms Stockton first raised the name "Jayde" as a potential person to whom the lease would be transferred on 24 May 2025. The owner did not provide consent. Ms Turner-Ledwidge moved in anyway.
There is no evidence the Agent or landlord was aware until after the fact of Charlotte Edwards who stayed from September to October 2025.
On 11 October 2025 the owner received a text message from Maria Klunder which stated: "as of yesterday u have 2 girls staying in your unit Jade & charlotte."
Ms Stockton said Ms Turner-Ledwidge had moved out in mid-October and Charlotte Edwards had moved out in October.
In addition to the breaches I have found above concerning Puja Nagaria and Jordyn, I find further breaches of cl 35.1 and the Special Lease Condition in the Annexure and s 74(1) by the tenants during the period April 2025 to October 2025, for their failure to obtain written consent prior to each of Rosie, Jayde Turner-Ledwidge and Charlotte Edwards moving in.

[121]

As required by cl 59.2, the tenants are not to use, advertise for use, sub-let... the whole or any part of the Premises for the purpose of giving a person the right to occupy.. for the purpose of a holiday, without the prior written consent of the landlord, which may be refused in the landlord's discretion. Special Condition 15 requires the tenant must give 21 days' notice prior to any change in use of the Premises for short term or holiday letting. And the Special Lease Condition in the Annexure prohibits subletting for short-term letting or holiday rental.
The allegation that from six weeks into the tenancy the tenants without permission or notice were active in seeking people to occupy the Premises, on a short-term basis for holiday stays, as indicated by online advertisements presented by the Agent, is in my view, made out.
This is supported by the 18 December 2024 post on Facebook Marketplace where Lucy Stockton is described as the "seller" to let one room of the Premises for about three weeks. The post listed "short term Maroubra beachfront flat available NOW til 10th Jan." "Perfect for friends or family staying over the holiday season. Share flat with one Aussie girl who will be out a lot over Xmas & NY. $550 a week/$650 couple." It could be inferred that Ms Stockton, who is English, is not the "Aussie girl" and another person will be staying there with proposed newcomer.
As long as they don't advertise the Premises on third party platforms (discussed as a separate category of breach below), the tenants are entitled to look for a sub tenant (to be submitted to the landlord for approval), but not for the purpose of holiday lettings.
I find a breach of cl 59.2 and Special Condition 15 occurred on or about 18 December 2024 as the Premises were advertised on Facebook for the purpose of holiday letting, at least on a partial basis, and 21 days' notice was not given.
Whilst I find there is no evidence of any link between the Airbnb host name "Loz" to Lucy Stockton or to the Premises, I am suspicious about the Airbnb activity, particularly in light of the December 2024 Airbnb post on the host account in the name of "Loz", which refers to both Morgan and Lucy as hosts (p 63).
Holiday letting is supported by the concessions made by Ms Stockton in her (earlier) Tribunal application filed on 27 May 2025 (which has since been withdrawn). In that pleading, Ms Stockton concedes there was short-term letting over the Christmas and New Year period at the Premises but attributes this to Morgan Williams. I am sceptical as to the veracity of that attribution as I am of the view Ms Stockton may have been motivated by other factors at that time given the alleged domestic violence situation and her request for orders in that earlier application that Mr Williams be removed as a tenant. Ms Stockton is no longer seeking that order as the tenants appear to have reconciled. I find it more likely that the short-term holiday letting was a joint enterprise between Morgan Williams and Lucy Stockton.
The Airbnb allegation is further corroborated by Puja Nagaria in her text message of 12 March 2025 sent to a female identified as "Kate" being the daughter of an owner and resident of another unit in the Building, alleging that the entire Premises was sublet and/or short term holiday letting was occurring.
Ms Nagaria has not filed a statutory declaration or sworn affidavit which sets out the facts and circumstances with supporting documentation. I find they she could have been motivated by any number of reasons, given it seems she had a falling out with the tenants and they asked her to leave. Those occupants that Ms Nagaria says she lived with, such as the "Scottish couple", and the "girl from Germany" who "stayed for 5 nights and found the place on Airbnb", are not named. Ms Nagaria's evidence of what they told her is hearsay.
If "Loz" is in fact Lucy Stockton, as Kaz Keay informed the owner, the owner's search of "Loz air bnb Maroubra" on 23 April 2025 indicates hosting was occurring well past the Christmas holiday period. The owner's oral evidence that Kaz Keay told the owner she found the Premises on Airbnb is also hearsay and not evidence to which I have attributed significant weight. Again, it would have been preferable for Ms Keay to have filed an affidavit or statutory declaration.
Ultimately, when I weigh up the competing evidence, I consider the evidence presented by the landlord does establish on the balance of probabilities that the tenants have not been using the Premises as a residential flat in accordance with the RTA, but rather there have been attempts to use, and it has actually been used for, holiday and short-term accommodation, on at least a partial basis, for the period from approximately December 2024 to March 2025.
I find a breach of cl 59.2, special condition 15 and Schedule A.

[123]

I find that at various points during the lease Mr Williams and Ms Stockton lived at the Premises, sometimes together, sometimes not. At other times they lived elsewhere, in unknown and presumably different abodes due to the terms of the ADVO. Although at some stage they appear to have reconciled with Ms Stockton staying where Mr Williams was temporarily staying.
Ms Stockton's evidence is contradictory on this issue. She gave sworn oral evidence she was on holidays for the month of July, but otherwise was living at the Premises. Mr Williams said he temporarily moved out in mid-July and is waiting to move back in after the ADVO is resolved.
However, inconsistently, the correspondence reflects Ms Stockton appears not have stayed at the Premises from at least 8 May 2025 due to the allegations of domestic violence against Morgan Williams, which she disclosed to Mr Francica in her email of 8 May 2025. This correspondence suggests there was an earlier ADVO granted prior to the July ADVO. Only the July ADVO has been tendered in the applications before me.
On 12 March 2025, a previous occupant Puja Nagaria said in her text message that neither tenant lived at the Premises.
By the time Rosie moved out in May 2025 and Ms Turner-Ledwidge moved in around 7 June, it appears Morgan Williams was still living there and Ms Stockton was not.
On the tenants' evidence, for at least for the latter half of July, neither tenant was there. Morgan Wiliams has said his personal belongings remain in the Premises.
By August 2025, Ms Stockton had apparently moved back in. From August, she was advertising on Flatmate Finders one of the bedrooms to rent under the name of "Jayde". In October 2025, both bedrooms were simultaneously advertised on Flatmate Finders as being available for rent.
In October 2025, Ms Edwards said the entire Premises was (and continues to be) sublet and Lucy Stockton lives elsewhere.
Against this, former resident of unit 3, Anthony Marcar has provided a letter that Ms Stockton is living there.
Like Puja Nagaria, neither of Ms Edwards or Mr Marcar have provided an affidavit or statutory declaration.
Ms Stockton's explanation that in October 2025 by advertising 2 rooms for rent, she was giving a choice of room to potential renters, might be plausible if the rooms were for the same time frame. However Ms Stockton is offering for rent the larger room for 1 month and the smaller room for 6 months.
On balance however, I do not consider this to be attempt to sublet the entire unit in October 2025. I find this because Ms Stockton has four months earlier lodged the application for subtenancy for Ms Turner-Ledwidge and I am persuaded by her evidence and the contemporaneous correspondence with the Agent that she has a vested interest in the success of that application and she is now seeking to do the right thing.
On balance I am not persuaded there has been a subletting of the entire Premises. Weighing up all of the evidence, I find there is insufficient evidence the tenants' permanent place of residence is elsewhere. I find it is more likely that from May 2025, the tenants were in and out of the Premises and house sitting due to the obligations of the ADVO.

[136]

The issue is whether the landlord's refusal to consent to a partial sublet of the Premises to Ms Turner-Ledwidge was reasonable.
The landlord is entitled to refuse consent if any of the matters in s 75(3) arise, namely the number of proposed occupants is more than the number permitted, the proposed tenant is listed on a residential tenancy database or the landlord reasonably believes that the premises would be overcrowded. He can refuse for other reasons.
I note that whilst the number of occupants would increase from the specified 2 to 3, Ms Turner-Ledwidge as a subtenant is not considered an "occupant" for the purposes of the RTA as she will not be named on the lease. It is Ms Stockton and Mr Williams, the head tenants (who are treated as landlords vis a via the proposed subtenant for the purposes of s 10 of the Act) who remain liable to the owner for any breaches caused by the subtenant. Objectively, the Premises would not be overcrowded.
No submission was made that Ms Turner-Ledwidge is listed on a residential tenancy database.
Ms Stockton maintains Ms Turner-Ledwidge is a suitable tenant. The Subtenancy Application Form lodged 14 June 2025 was in approved form, accompanied by a rent payment record for Ms Turner-Ledwidge's current residence at Brook St, Coogee which shows no arrears are owing and documents that verified Ms Turner-Ledwidge's identity and residency status.
Charlotte Edwards reported to the Agent in October 2025 that she has reported Ms Turner-Ledwidge to the Police for harassing her and says Ms Turner-Ledwidge runs a hair salon from the Premises. This information, to the extent it is true, was only given to the Agent in recent weeks and could not have informed the landlord's decision at the time to refuse the subtenancy request and instead decide to terminate.
In essence, the landlord's case for refusing consent to sublet is based on the tenants' previous (and what it alleges are existing and ongoing) breaches as to unauthorised subletting and pets.
At the time the Subtenancy Application Form was lodged on 14 June 2025, the landlord was pursuing the May Termination Application at the Tribunal for termination for rent arrears and the breaches for pets and holiday accommodation. This gave rise to an obvious difficulty for the landlord in that any grant of consent might have adversely affected the landlord's claims, and might have, if the landlord was successful in obtaining a termination order, required Ms Turner-Ledwidge as subtenant to be evicted. That concern has ameliorated to some extent as I have determined the termination application on the basis of my reasons above and made specific performance orders.
Whilst (as mentioned earlier) the Landlord's May Termination Application was not competent in so far as it sought to terminate based on unauthorised pets and subletting due to falling foul of s 83(2)(a), the arrears were a genuine concern. In May 2025 the tenants were significantly behind in rent and at that stage the landlord was still able to pursue a termination order based on rent arrears. However, the arrears were paid in mid-June 2025 and the termination application did not proceed and was withdrawn on 20 June 2025, 7 days after the subtenancy application was submitted.
I have found that the tenants had breached the RTA by keeping a dog at the Premises without consent, however there have been no recent reports of animal waste or Ms Stockton's dog appropriating common property, since February 2025.
I have found no evidence of persistent and ongoing holiday letting. There have been no reports of holiday letting since February/March 2025.
Any recent breaches I have found are the listings on Flatmate Finders for a flatmate during August to October 2025, which the tenants have explained due to the ADVO and pending approval for Ms Turner-Ledwidge. The Airbnb platform is to be distinguished from the Flatmate Finder platform, as Airbnb provides a transactional service providing short term rentals while flatmate finder services are typically for long-term shared living arrangements.
The tenants have provided a written proposal that addresses the original concerns and provides stability and the specific performance orders I have made will alleviate the landlord's concerns.
I find that Ms Stockton's claim that the landlord has unreasonably refused consent to sublet to Ms Turner-Ledwidge, in breach of cl 35.3 and s 75(2) of the Act, should succeed.
I have made orders pursuant to s 75(5) that the tenants may partially sublet the Premises to Ms Turner-Ledwidge.

Stockton v Gray; Gray v Stockton [2025] NSWCATCD 204;

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (141 paragraphs)

Legislation Cited (9)