Law Current to: October 17, 2025

Evictions for Repeated Breaches

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 repeated breaches is one example.

Application for termination order for repeated breaches

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 repeated remedied breaches does not need to be preceded by a Notice to Leave: s 335 (g) RTRAA. A landlord can apply directly to the Tribunal for a termination order if the circumstance permit termination for repeated breaches.

Section 299 is commonly relied on for regular, late rental payments but it is not confined to these types of breaches.

Repeated Breaches

Under s 299 RTRAA, lessors may apply to the Tribunal for a termination order for repeated breaches if the following are satisfied:

• the lessor has given (at least) two prior Notices to Remedy Breach of the same provision in relation to the agreement
• each notice relates to a separate incident of breach, and the breaches are capable of being remedied (see Common Ground QLD v Christopher Healy [2020] QCAT 495)
• the tenant has remedied each breach within the allowed remedy period
• the tenant commits another breach of the same provision
• all breaches happened within the last 12 months, and in relation to the same tenancy agreement (see r 25 of the Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Regulation 2009)

Unless each of these conditions are met, the lessor will not be able to establish the necessary grounds for a termination under s 299 RTRAA.

In Common Ground QLD v Christopher Healy, the Tribunal considered an application under s 299 in relation to objectionable behaviour. Adjudicator Stroud succinctly summarised the operation of s 299 at [58]-[64]:

Section 299 of the Act is commonly relied upon for termination of a tenancy agreement in circumstances where the tenant has failed to pay rent when due and only makes payment of the rent after being issued with a Form 11 Notice to Remedy Breach, prior to the remedy period stated therein.
The intention of this provision is to stop tenants practising brinkmanship. It is needed because a lessor cannot issue a Form 12 Notice to Leave if the Form 11 Notice to Remedy Breach has been complied with. Pursuant to s 299 of the Act, a lessor can apply to the Tribunal to terminate without the need for a Form 12 if there are two remedied breaches followed by a third breach all happening within 12 months.
…
Whilst predominately used for continued late rent payments, the section is not confined to this. What is consistent in an application pursuant to s 299 of the Act is that the type of breach relied upon in each instance is the same and capable of being remedied.
…
Unlike other provisions of the Act, there is no requirement in s 299 of the Act that the breach relied upon is a serious breach of the tenancy. As previously stated, its purpose it to prevent tenants from stalling and manipulating the system.
…
In my view, s 299 of the Act cannot be relied upon in circumstances when the Notice to Remedy Breach has been issued after the breach the subject of the notice has already been remedied and/or is not capable of being remedied. That is not say the Form 11 should not be issued, as it can still form the basis for termination on other grounds. However, it is a mandatory term of s 299 of the Act that the tenant remedies the breach within the relevant allowed remedy period.

This requirement is, in my respectful opinion, consistent with the purpose of the section which is to prevent tenants stalling and manipulating the system to prevent a Notice to Leave being issued.

Has the application established the relevant grounds?

Section 347(1) of the Act provides that if an application is made to a Tribunal for a termination order because of repeated breaches, the tribunal may make the order if it is satisfied:

• the applicant has established the ground of the application (that is, that there were repeated, remedied breaches of the same provision within 12 months under the same agreement); and
• the person in relation to whom the order is sought committed each breach stated in the two notices to remedy breach on which the application is based.

As discussed in Common Ground QLD v Christopher Healy, if the landlord is unable to establish the ground of the application, the Tribunal is required to dismiss the application.

As an initial step, it is necessary to consider the relevant documents to determine if the grounds for the application exist. This usually requires reviewing the various notices provided and, if the matter relates the rent arrears, the rent ledger. You may want to consider whether:

• any of the previous Notice to Remedy Breach were invalid. For more information about the requirements of a Notice to Remedy Breach, see Responding to a Notice to Leave for unremedied breaches?
• there were two Notice to Remedy Breach within the last 12 months that were remedied within the allowed time. If the notices were not remedied within the allowed time (for example, the unpaid rent remain unpaid after 7 days), a landlord cannot rely on s 299 to end the tenancy?
• the alleged breaches are capable of being remedied?
• the tenant committed the alleged breaches?
• the alleged remedy breaches occurred under the same agreement?

If any of the grounds is not established, the tenant can make submissions to the Tribunal requesting the application be dismissed.

The Tribunal’s discretion to order termination

The use of ‘may’ in section 347 gives the Tribunal a discretion: Betts v Department of Housing and Public Works [2019] QCATA 180, [55]. However, the discretion is not unconfined: Vanilla Rentals v Tenant [2023] QCAT 519, [75].

When considering whether it ought to order a termination, the Tribunal must exercise the discretion reasonably, which is ascertained by reference to the scope and purpose of the statute: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332 [63]-[76] (Hayne, Kiefel and Bell JJ). The fact that there is a discretion as to how and when the tenancy is terminated suggests that the ‘legislature did not intend that termination should be as of right, and that the circumstances of both lessor and tenant should be considered’: Vanilla Rentals v Tenant [2023] QCAT 519, [76].

When making an order the Tribunal must make orders that it considers fair and equitable: Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 13(1).

Section 347(2) of the Act further provides that in deciding the application, the Tribunal must have regard to:

• the seriousness of each breach associated with the application, having regard to the extent of any inconvenience or financial or other disadvantage suffered by the applicant;
• the period for which the tenancy has been in existence;
• the period in which the breaches were committed;
• for a fixed term agreement—the remaining period of the tenancy;
• anything else the tribunal considers relevant.

If the lessor has grounds to bring an application for termination for repeated breaches, you should consider whether your client’s circumstances present any argument that the Tribunal ought to exercise its’ discretion not to order the termination.

Challenging the Tribunal’s discretion

Although there is a discretion involved in making a termination order, the exercise of that discretion will not be interfered with by an Appeal Tribunal unless it can be demonstrated that the learned Adjudicator:

• failed to exercise discretion;
• made some error in the exercise of the discretion;
• acted upon a wrong principle;
• allowed extraneous or irrelevant matters to guide or effect him; or
• made a mistake about the facts.

It must be shown that the decision is plainly unjust or unreasonable, and involved a clear misapplication of discretion. Just because the Appeal Tribunal might have exercised the discretion differently is not a basis for changing the decision: Tut v Department of Communities and Housing [2012] QCATA 196, [11]; Foster v Horizon Housing Company [2016] QCATA 75, [6].