When Danger Doesn’t Automatically Mean Eviction
Homes Victoria v Marsden [2025] VCAT 690
Decision date: 31 July 2025
Key issue: Whether a renter convicted of assaulting a neighbour should be evicted under s 91ZJ (danger to neighbours) or allowed to remain under strict conditions.
Full Case: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2025/690.html
The Background
Homes Victoria rented a unit in a seniors’ housing complex to Carol Marsden. In March 2024, she assaulted her 68-year-old neighbour with a bat, causing serious injuries. Marsden later pleaded guilty to recklessly causing serious injury and was sentenced to time served plus a two-year Community Corrections Order.
Homes Victoria issued a notice to vacate under s 91ZJ of the Residential Tenancies Act, claiming she posed an ongoing danger to neighbours. They sought a possession order.
The Arguments
Homes Victoria: The assault was serious and unprovoked, leaving residents fearful. Marsden’s denial of responsibility and criminal history showed she remained a danger.
Marsden: Denied committing the assault despite her plea. Argued eviction would leave her homeless, undermine rehabilitation, and breach her human rights. Her lawyers said she had no pattern of violence and was being monitored under her CCO.
The Decision
The Tribunal accepted that Marsden committed the assault and that it endangered her neighbour’s safety. However, it ruled eviction was not reasonable or proportionate at this time:
The assault appeared to be an isolated incident.
Marsden faced extreme vulnerability and risk of homelessness if evicted.
Her ongoing CCO already imposed strict monitoring and rehabilitation requirements.
Judge Chettle in the criminal case had emphasised the importance of stable housing for her rehabilitation.
Instead of eviction, VCAT:
Adjourned the possession application until April 2027.
Ordered Marsden not to endanger neighbours and to comply with her CCO.
Gave Homes Victoria the right to renew the application if she breaches these conditions.
The Takeaway
This case shows that even when serious endangering conduct is proven, eviction is not automatic. VCAT must weigh the safety of neighbours against the renter’s vulnerability, housing stability, and rehabilitation prospects.
