Can Excessive Notices and Emails Amount to Age Discrimination?
Duffield v Singh (Human Rights) [2025] VCAT 736
Decision date: 20 August 2025
Key issue: Whether repeated notices to vacate and overbearing communication by a property manager amounted to unlawful discrimination on the basis of age under the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic)
In this case, the Tribunal considered a renter’s claim that he was targeted because of his age. The renter alleged that his landlord, property manager, and agency engaged in bullying conduct and tried to evict him because he was one of the oldest tenants in the block.
Full Case: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2025/736.html
The Background
Mr Duffield had rented his unit since 2016. His RRP, Mr Singh, owned six units in the block and appointed Hall & Partners as managing agents in September 2023.
From that point, Mr Duffield experienced frequent communication from the agency, including “friendly reminder” arrears notices, inspection notices, and multiple notices to vacate. He argued that these notices, together with the earlier eviction of another elderly renter, showed a pattern of age-based discrimination.
He lodged his complaint under the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic), alleging discrimination, bullying, and harassment based on his age.
What Did the Tribunal Decide?
The Tribunal dismissed the application. While it acknowledged the agency’s practices were overbearing and sometimes erroneous, it found no evidence that Mr Duffield’s age was the reason for these actions.
Here’s why.
1. Notices to Vacate
Mr Duffield had received three separate notices to vacate between 2023 and 2025, two of which were later dismissed by VCAT for technical reasons. He argued that these notices were issued because he was the oldest tenant.
The Tribunal found no evidence linking the notices to his age. Instead, they were explained by the landlord’s financial reasons (selling a property to support family and reduce land tax). The Tribunal stressed that under the Briginshaw standard, suspicion and assumption are not enough — clear and cogent evidence of age-based treatment is required.
2. Excessive Communications
The property manager’s practice of sending “friendly reminder” emails and texts when rent appeared a day late was found to be overbearing and intrusive. However, the Tribunal accepted these reminders were sent automatically to all renters using the agency’s system.
Mr Duffield’s rent was in fact paid on time each month, but delays in banking clearance triggered the notices. While poor practice and frustrating, the Tribunal held it was not discrimination, as age was not a factor.
3. Procedural Errors
Hall & Partners also made two major administrative mistakes:
An erroneous “second arrears” notice sent on the first day they took over management, and
A system error in 2024 that wrongly showed rent arrears and led to a notice to vacate.
Although these errors worsened Mr Duffield’s relationship with the agency, the Tribunal found they were administrative failings — not evidence of age-based treatment.
The Outcome
The Tribunal found that:
There was no evidence that Mr Duffield was treated unfavourably because of his age.
Overbearing communication practices and repeated notices were poor management, but not unlawful discrimination.
The application was dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Key Takeaways for Property Managers
Excessive or premature arrears notices can undermine trust with renters, even if system-generated.
Poor communication practices may breach quiet enjoyment but do not necessarily amount to discrimination unless linked to a protected attribute.
Under the Equal Opportunity Act, claims require clear, cogent evidence that the protected attribute (such as age) was a factor in the treatment.
Administrative errors and poor practice can create disputes, even if they don’t breach discrimination law — highlighting the need for careful communication and system checks.
