Personal Service Done Correctly
Sathiyamoorthy v Gomez (No 2) (Residential Tenancies) [2025] VCAT 945
Decision date: 23 October 2025
Key issue: Whether serving a Notice to Vacate for rent arrears on only one of several renters satisfies the service requirements under section 506(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (Vic).
Full Case: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2025/945.html
The Background
This case involved two linked applications between residential rental provider Mary Sathiyamoorthy and renters Kalaiselvi Gomez and her family, relating to a property in Hoppers Crossing.
The renters sought compensation for maintenance failures, while the rental provider applied for a possession order on the grounds of rent arrears. The Notice to Vacate (NTV) for arrears was personally delivered by the agent to Ms Gomez only, even though there were four renters named on the rental agreement.
What Did the Tribunal Decide?
The Tribunal dismissed the rental provider’s possession application, finding that the Notice to Vacate was invalid because it was not properly served on all renters as required by the Act.
Member Tanner held that the word “renter” in section 506(3) must be read to include all renters under a residential rental agreement. Therefore, each renter must be personally served or otherwise given the notice in one of the prescribed ways — personal delivery, registered post, electronic communication (if agreed), or as ordered by VCAT.
Service on one renter, even the household’s main contact, does not constitute service on all.
Why the Notice Failed
The agent personally handed the NTV to Ms Gomez and believed that this was sufficient because Ms Gomez acted as the family’s point of contact. However, the other three renters — Irwin, Nathan, and Jacintha Gomez — were never personally served or provided copies.
VCAT relied on the interpretation principles in the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 (Vic) (which states that singular includes plural) and previous decisions such as Bedwell v Wantirna Park Estate Pty Ltd [2018] VCAT 34. Member Tanner emphasised that section 506(3) is mandatory, not discretionary — and that the Tribunal “must be confident that everything required has been done.”
Because the notice was not served on all four renters, the possession application could not proceed.
The Compensation Claim
The renters’ separate compensation claim for maintenance issues (including a faulty air conditioner, broken dishwasher, and leaking pergola) was partly upheld, with $1,100.57 awarded for loss of amenity. However, this portion of the case was minor compared to the procedural failure surrounding the notice.
The Outcome
Possession application dismissed — NTV invalid due to improper service.
Compensation claim allowed in part — $1,100.57 for repair delays.
Key Takeaways for Property Managers
Each renter named on the lease must be personally served with the Notice to Vacate or served in another permitted way under section 506(3).
Service on one renter does not extend to others, even if that renter handles all communications.
Always keep proof of service for each renter (e.g., signed acknowledgment, registered post receipt).
If personal service is impractical, apply for VCAT orders for substituted service before filing the possession application.
Even valid arrears can’t justify possession if the procedural step of service is defective.
