I am looking for:
Tags
- No categories assigned
Law Current to: November 10, 2025
Evictions for Objectionable Behaviour
Residential tenancies in Queensland can only be ended in one of the ways outlined in the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (the RTRAA).
Providing a valid Notice to Leave (Form 12) is one of the allowed ways to end a tenancy agreement. Landlords may give a renter a Notice to Leave in various circumstances, including if the tenancy is due to end (for example, the 12-month fixed term is coming to an end) or they believe the renter has failed to remedy a breach of the rental agreement.
In some circumstances, a rental provider can apply to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal to end a tenancy agreement with first issuing a Notice to Leave. Evictions for objectionable behaviour is one example.
Application for termination order for Objectionable Behaviour
In most circumstances, rental providers must first issue a Notice to Leave for one of the identified reasons. An application to the Tribunal for a termination order and warrant of possession can by bought only if the tenant has failed to leave the property by the handover date.
Importantly, an application for termination for objectionable behaviour does not need to be preceded by a Notice to Leave: s 335 (e) RTRAA. A landlord can apply directly to the Tribunal for a termination order if the circumstance permit termination for repeated breaches.
The Tribunal will issue a termination order and a warrant of possession if it is satisfied that:
- The ground of objectionable behaviour has been made out; and
- Termination is justified as the proportionate response in the circumstances.
The legislation treats residential tenancies and rooming accommodation differently. This resource applies to residential tenancies. As an initial step, you may need to confirm the type of rental agreement your client has entered.
What amounts to Objectionable Behaviour?
Objectionable Behaviour is defined in ss 297 and 297A RTRAA. What constitutes objectional behaviour depends on whether it is a private tenancy or public/community housing.
Private Tenancy
Section 297 RTRAA states that objectional behaviour occurs where the tenant has:
- harassed, intimidated, or verbally abused the lessor, the lessor’s agent or nearby occupiers; or
- caused or is causing serious nuisance to persons occupying nearby premises.
Importantly, the definition of objectionable behaviour in private tenancies is narrower than the definition in community or public housing.
In Seo v Kent Southport Realty Pty Ltd [2018], the tenant intentionally switched off electricity to another occupant’s unit. The Court of Appeal upheld the Tribunal’s finding that this was “objectionable behaviour” under s 297 because it deliberately interfered with another’s quiet enjoyment.
Community and Public Housing Tenancy
Section 297A of the RTRAA expands the definition of objectionable behaviour for tenants in community or public housing.
For community and public housing tenants, objectionable behaviour includes where the tenant, an occupant, a guest of the tenant or a person allowed on the premises by the tenant:
- harassed, intimidated, or verbally abused the lessor, the lessor’s agent or nearby occupiers; or
- caused or is causing serious nuisance to persons occupying nearby premises; or
- as intentionally or recklessly endangered another person at the premises; or
- interfered with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of a person occupying premises nearby.
The language of the act makes it clear that a community or public housing tenant may be evicted due to the behaviour of an occupant, guest or other person allowed on the premises by the tenant.
In Simonova v Department of Housing [2019], the Court of Appeal clarified that the words “intentionally or recklessly” apply only to cases where a tenant endangers another person. For interference with the peace, comfort or privacy of neighbours, a tenant may still breach the law even if the behaviour was unintentional or beyond their control, such as where it arises from a mental health condition.
The Tribunal’s discretion to order termination
Under ss 345 and 345A of the RTRAA, the Tribunal may only make a termination order if satisfied that:
- The ground of objectionable behaviour is established; and
- Termination is justified.
The Tribunal must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the ground of objectionable behaviour is made out.
The seriousness of objectionable conduct is a judgment of fact and degree, to be made in the reasonable discretion of the tribunal.
For private tenancies, the Tribunal assesses the seriousness, recurrence, and frequency of the behaviour and whether termination is the least onerous effective remedy.
For public/community housing, the Tribunal must also consider:
- The impact of the behaviour on neighbours and nearby occupiers.
- The tenant’s housing history and prior conduct.
- The Department’s obligations to protect and manage housing for other tenants.
- The needs of persons awaiting housing assistance.
In Simonova v Department of Housing and Public Works, both the Tribunal and the Court of Appeal stressed that termination is a discretionary remedy. Even where objectionable behaviour is proven, the Tribunal must determine whether termination is justified and proportionate, balancing tenant hardship against community impact.
Fault and Mental Health Considerations
Simonova v Department of Housing [2019] clarified that:
- Intent or voluntariness is required for “endangerment” grounds.
- No fault is required for “interference with peace, comfort, privacy” in public housing, strict liability applies.
The tenant in Simonova argued that her behaviour was involuntary and a symptom of mental illness. The Court held this was irrelevant to liability under s 297 but could be considered when the Tribunal exercises its discretion about whether termination is justified.
If the Tribunal makes a termination order, the tenant will be provided a date in which they must vacate the premises.
Practical Steps when Responding to an Objectionable Behaviour Application
If a tenant receives an application for termination due to objectionable behaviour, you may want to consider:
Step 1 – Procedural compliance
- Has the lessor used the correct Tribunal form with supporting evidence?
- Was the tenant served and provided reasonable notice of the hearing?
Step 2 – Are the Allegations Established
- Who is alleged to have engaged in the behaviour? (tenant, guest, occupant).
- What type of conduct is alleged? (harassment, nuisance, endangerment).
- Was it intentional, reckless, or involuntary?
Step 3 – What evidence has been presented?
- Incident reports, witness statements, neighbour complaints.
- Medical/mental health evidence if relevant.
- Housing department records (for public housing).
In Department of Housing v Simonova [2017], multiple neighbours gave evidence of sustained nuisance and intimidation. The Tribunal found the evidence credible and sufficient to justify termination. This highlights the weight the Tribunal gives to neighbour complaints if consistent and corroborated.
Step 4 – Explore Responses
- Argue the behaviour is not sufficiently serious or recurrent.
- Raise mitigating factors (mental health treatment, support services).
- Show termination is disproportionate compared with other remedies (warnings, behaviour plans, transfers).
- Consider whether you can negotiate with the lessor or housing provider?
- Has the tenant taken steps to address the behaviour or underlying causes?
Where tenants can show they are engaged with support services (e.g. mental health treatment or community case management), the Tribunal has sometimes opted against termination, preferring less disruptive remedies. Evidence of efforts to improve behaviour or mitigate risks can be persuasive.
Step 5 – Prepare for Hearing
- Emphasise the Tribunal’s discretion: it may refuse termination if unjust hardship would result and lesser remedies are available.
- Be ready to address both the legal threshold (ground established) and the discretionary threshold (termination justified).
- Reinforce the “least onerous effective remedy” principle. Termination should be a last resort where warnings, mediation, or support measures have failed. Demonstrating good-faith engagement with support services can sway the discretionary balance.
