Tasmanian civil tribunal sides with landlord over tenant in cat dispute in major test of state’s new rental laws
In the first test of Tasmania’s new pet rental laws, the court found the landlord’s decision to refuse a tenant permission to keep a rescue cat was reasonable.
The laws, which came into force in March, assume that tenants can keep pets unless the landlord provides reasonable grounds for refusal.
A tenant wanted to keep her six-month-old rescue cat, Periwinkle, in a carpeted unit that was part of a four-unit complex.
However, the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal ruled that the landlord was entitled to refuse this request as the strata regulations required corporate approval for pets, but this was refused.
The regulations say an animal cannot be brought into or kept in a unit without the written consent of the organization.
When the tenant applied for permission to keep Periwinkle, the strata manager rejected the offer.
The owner claimed he had concerns about the kitten’s safety due to the unit’s proximity to traffic.
But Richard Grueber, the court’s vice president, said this was “purely speculative.”
“I do not think the risk from traffic or the surrounding area poses an unacceptable risk to Periwinkle’s safety or welfare, particularly as she will be a house cat,” he said.
“I also do not consider that the unit’s lack of open space is a reasonable justification for refusing consent to a house cat when there is no evidence that open space is needed, for example for the welfare of Periwinkle.
“If these were the only issues, I would consider the refusal of consent to be unreasonable and the defendant to be able to keep Periwinkle on the premises.”
The court found that even if the landlord approved the request to keep animals in the unit, it would have “no practical effect” because the agency denied permission.
“The agency actually denied consent. The applicant’s denial is consistent with the agency’s legal position,” Mr. Grueber said.
“I am satisfied that the applicant’s refusal on that basis was a reasonable refusal.”
