In Homes Victoria v Marsden [2025] VCAT 690, a renter convicted of assaulting her elderly neighbour faced eviction under a danger notice. While the Tribunal accepted that her conduct endangered neighbours, it ruled that eviction would be disproportionate given her homelessness risk and ongoing rehabilitation. Instead, VCAT adjourned the possession application until 2027, with a right of renewal if the renter reoffends or breaches her Community Corrections Order.

In Tang v Ferolino [2025] VCAT 680, VCAT confirmed that a residential rental agreement does not simply “expire” at the end of a fixed term. If renters want to leave on the end date, they must give 28 days’ notice under s 91Z. Failure to do so can result in compensation to the residential provider.

A renter ignored multiple breach notices and failed to comply with a VCAT order to clean — leading to a property so unclean that the Member personally inspected it. The Tribunal found eviction reasonable and proportionate, reinforcing the importance of compliance and thorough evidence.

Can a renter get their money back after paying under an invalid rent increase notice? VCAT says no — despite the notice being technically non-compliant. This case dives into the difference between invalidity and actual loss, and why VCAT refused to order a refund. Castellan unpacks the ruling and explains why property managers shouldn’t get complacent.

The Tribunal dismissed a possession application brought under section 91ZK of the Residential Tenancies Act — despite shouting, swearing, and a baseball bat. Why?