In Brief

When the retail mar­kets slow, dis­putes between land­lord and ten­ant tend to arise and a claim on the bond mon­ey may soon follow. 

A Land­lord must ensure that it com­plies with the pro­vi­sions of the Retail Leas­es Act 1994 in respect to the lodge­ment of the bond. 


Lodge­ment of security

Sec­tion 16C of the Retail Leas­es Act 1994, pro­vides that a land­lord must deposit a bond received with the Direc­tor Gen­er­al with­in 20 busi­ness days after: 

a.the date of receipt of the bond mon­ey; and
b.the date the lease became bind­ing on both the land­lord and the tenant.

Sec­tion 16C of the Retail Leas­es Act 1994 extends to an agent act­ing on behalf of the land­lord. The land­lord may be liable for a penal­ty of up to $2,200 if the bond is not lodged with­in the time con­straints above. 

The cheque rep­re­sent­ing the bond must be accom­pa­nied by the approved form or the Direc­tor Gen­er­al can reject the lodge­ment and the land­lord may face a penal­ty if the re-lodge­ment falls out­side the time constraints.

Dis­pute res­o­lu­tion options

Once a dis­pute aris­es there are many dis­pute res­o­lu­tion options avail­able to the land­lord and tenant. 

How­ev­er, Sec­tion 68 of the Retail Leas­es Act 1994 pro­vides that a land­lord or ten­ant may not com­mence pro­ceed­ings before a court unless and until the Reg­is­trar has cer­ti­fied in writ­ing that medi­a­tion has failed to resolve the dis­pute or the court is sat­is­fied that medi­a­tion is unlike­ly to resolve the dispute. 

Mediation

Medi­a­tion is a cost and time effec­tive way to resolve a retail ten­an­cy dis­pute. The cost to each par­ty is less than $1,000. Medi­a­tion is a process in which the land­lord and the ten­ant iden­ti­fy the issues in dis­pute in the pres­ence of a medi­a­tor and all work togeth­er to reach an agree­ment. The medi­a­tor will not pro­vide advice to the land­lord or the ten­ant. The medi­a­tor’s role is sole­ly to facil­i­tate an agreement. 

Sec­tion 69 of Retail Leas­es Act 1994 pro­vides that any state­ment or admis­sion made in the course of medi­a­tion of a retail ten­an­cy dis­pute is not admis­si­ble at a hear­ing or in any oth­er legal proceedings. 

What oth­er Alter­na­tive Dis­pute Res­o­lu­tions (ADR) are available?
Arbitration

An arbi­tra­tor is capa­ble of mak­ing a deter­mi­na­tion in a dis­pute once the arbi­tra­tor has heard the argu­ments and reviewed the evi­dence of both the land­lord and the tenant. 

Conciliation

A con­cil­ia­tor assists the land­lord and the ten­ant in iden­ti­fy­ing the issues, devel­op­ing options, con­sid­er­ing options and alter­na­tives in an attempt to resolve the dis­pute. A con­cil­ia­tor is often legal­ly qual­i­fied or holds pro­fes­sion­al qual­i­fi­ca­tions in the area of dis­pute. The con­cil­ia­tor can­not deter­mine the dispute. 

Ear­ly neu­tral evaluation

This process gives the land­lord and the ten­ant an oppor­tu­ni­ty to present their dis­pute and evi­dence to a neu­tral eval­u­a­tor. The eval­u­a­tor deter­mines the key issues of the dis­pute and advis­es the most effec­tive way to resolve the dis­pute. The eval­u­a­tor can­not make a deter­mi­na­tion as to the facts of the dispute. 

Facilitation

An impar­tial facil­i­ta­tor assists the land­lord and the ten­ant in iden­ti­fy­ing and solv­ing the prob­lems by improv­ing the land­lord and ten­an­t’s abil­i­ty to work togeth­er to resolve the dispute. 

Conclusion

If the land­lord and ten­ant have failed to reach an agree­ment to the dis­pute and once a cer­tifi­cate of failed medi­a­tion is received, a par­ty may com­mence pro­ceed­ings in the Retail Leas­es Divi­sion of the Admin­is­tra­tive Deci­sions Tri­bunal. Sec­tions 70 to 77C of the Retail Leas­es Act 1994 out­line the lodg­ing process­es and pow­ers of the Admin­is­tra­tive Deci­sions Tribunal.

If you would like to repub­lish this arti­cle, it is gen­er­al­ly approved, but pri­or to doing so please con­tact the Mar­ket­ing team at marketing@​swaab.​com.​au. This arti­cle is not legal advice and the views and com­ments are of a gen­er­al nature only. This arti­cle is not to be relied upon in sub­sti­tu­tion for detailed legal advice.

Publications

More AI Slop in the Fair Work Juris­dic­tion: The Fight Back

In two recent cas­es both the Fair Work Com­mis­sion (FWC) and Fed­er­al Cir­cuit and Fam­i­ly Court of Aus­tralia (FCF­CoA) have…

NSW Build­ing (Approvals and Prac­ti­tion­ers) Bill 2026 Pass­es Parliament

The Build­ing (Approvals and Prac­ti­tion­ers) Bill 2026 (the Bill) passed through Par­lia­ment on Tues­day after­noon 4 August 2026. The Bill is…

AI Slop v Fair Work Com­mis­sion: The Scourge Continues

For all the talk of how extra­or­di­nary and trans­for­ma­tive arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence (AI) can sup­pos­ed­ly be, it con­tin­ues to be a scourge…

In the News

Michael Byrnes is quot­ed in the arti­cle, Is the News Bar­gain­ing Incen­tive and Office of AI the media’s last hope?”, pub­lished in HR Leader on 31 July 2026

Michael Byrnes is quot­ed in the arti­cle, ​“Is the News Bar­gain­ing Incen­tive and Office of AI the media’s last hope?”…

Michael Byrnes appeared on Mon­ey News with James Willis on 2GB, 3AW, 4BC and 6PR on 30 July 2026 to dis­cuss a recent Fair Work Com­mis­sion case deal­ing with an appli­ca­tion for a flex­i­ble work­ing arrange­ment to work from home (from 23:30 to 32:20)

Michael Byrnes appeared on Mon­ey News with James Willis on 2GB, 3AW, 4BC and 6PR on 30 July 2026 to…

Michael Byrnes appeared on McK­night Tonight with Robert McK­night on 28 July 2026 to dis­cuss the lat­est devel­op­ments in the pro­ceed­ings brought by Jack­ie O’ Hen­der­son against ARN (from 9:30 to 30:25)

Michael Byrnes appeared on McK­night Tonight with Robert McK­night on 28 July 2026 to dis­cuss the lat­est devel­op­ments in the…

Sign up for our Newsletter

*Mandatory information