No-Grounds Evictions, or “No-Fault” Evictions? A Comparative Legal Analysis of Tenant Security Reforms in Australia and the United Kingdom — Case Study

No-Grounds Evictions, or “No-Fault” Evictions: A Comparative Legal Analysis of Tenant Security Reforms in Australia and the United Kingdom

Abstract

This paper provides a comprehensive examination of “no-grounds evictions” — also known as “no-fault evictions” — the legal mechanism allowing landlords to terminate residential tenancies without providing a specific reason. Through comparative analysis of recent legislative reforms in Australia and the United Kingdom, this paper traces the global movement toward enhanced tenant security while identifying persistent challenges in implementation. The research examines the patchwork of approaches across Australian states and territories, from progressive bans in the Australian Capital Territory and Victoria to continued allowances in Western Australia and the Northern Territory. It then analyzes the United Kingdom’s impending abolition of Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 through the Renters’ Rights Bill 2025. Special attention is paid to emerging loopholes, particularly the “renoviction” phenomenon in New South Wales, where weakened evidentiary requirements threaten to undermine reform objectives. The paper concludes by evaluating the effectiveness of various regulatory approaches and proposing recommendations for balanced tenancy reform.

Keywords: no-grounds eviction, no-fault eviction, tenant security, residential tenancy law, comparative law, renters’ rights, Section 21, renoviction

— -

1. Introduction

The right to housing security represents a fundamental tension within private rental markets worldwide. Property owners seek flexibility to manage their assets, while tenants require stable, predictable homes in which to build their lives. At the heart of this tension lies the legal mechanism variously termed “no-grounds eviction,” “no-fault eviction,” “Section 21 notice,” or simply “the landlord’s power to evict without reason” — the ability of a landlord to terminate a residential tenancy without providing any specific justification, subject only to prescribed notice periods.

This paper argues that the global trend toward restricting or abolishing no-grounds evictions represents a paradigm shift in rental housing governance, yet the effectiveness of such reforms depends critically on the robustness of their evidentiary requirements and the availability of alternative grounds for legitimate possession claims. Using a comparative methodology, this paper examines recent legislative developments in Australia and the United Kingdom, jurisdictions currently at the forefront of tenancy law reform.

The significance of this topic extends beyond legal technicalities. Over two million people reside in rental housing in New South Wales alone, with more than 90 percent of rental properties owned by individual investors holding between one and three properties. For these tenants, the threat of no-grounds eviction creates what the Tenants’ Union of NSW describes as a “constant worry,” undermining their willingness to assert legitimate rights regarding repairs and maintenance. The financial costs of forced moves — removalists, connection fees, rent increases — can reach thousands of dollars, while the social costs include disrupted education, severed community ties, and heightened risk of homelessness.

The terminology itself warrants attention. The shift from “no-grounds eviction” to “no-fault eviction” reflects an important framing choice. Advocates for tenant protection favor “no-fault” because it emphasizes that the tenant has done nothing wrong — the eviction is not a response to breach, non-payment, or anti-social behavior. Landlord advocates sometimes prefer “no-grounds” as more neutral, suggesting merely that no reason need be given rather than that no reason exists. This paper uses the terms interchangeably, acknowledging that both capture essential features of the mechanism: termination without allegation of tenant fault and without obligation to specify grounds.

This paper proceeds as follows: Section 2 defines no-grounds eviction and distinguishes it from eviction proper. Section 3 analyzes the Australian position, examining the legislative patchwork across states and territories with particular attention to the New South Wales “renoviction” controversy. Section 4 examines the United Kingdom’s abolition of Section 21 under the Renters’ Rights Bill 2025. Section 5 compares these approaches, identifying best practices and persistent vulnerabilities. Section 6 concludes with policy recommendations.

— -

2. Defining No-Grounds Eviction: Terminology and Conceptual Boundaries

2.1 The Distinction Between Eviction and Non-Renewal

Before proceeding with substantive analysis, conceptual clarity is essential. The term “eviction” carries significant emotional weight and is frequently misapplied in public discourse. Legally, eviction represents the final stage of a possessory process — a court-ordered removal following established breach of tenancy obligations. Evictions necessarily involve grounds: non-payment of rent, property damage, illegal use, or other specified breaches.

No-grounds termination, by contrast, describes the lawful ending of a tenancy at the conclusion of a fixed term or during a periodic agreement without allegation of tenant fault. As the Redfern Legal Centre explains, an “End of Fixed Term” or “No grounds” termination notice allows landlords to decline renewal without providing reasons. This distinction matters because the procedural protections differ substantially: evictions require breach notices and opportunities to remedy; no-grounds terminations require only proper notice periods and compliance with formal requirements.

Some jurisdictions have attempted to further refine the terminology. Victoria’s Residential Tenancies Act 1997, as amended, now speaks of “termination without reason” rather than eviction. The United Kingdom’s forthcoming legislation avoids “eviction” entirely in describing Section 21 abolition, preferring “possession without fault.” These linguistic choices reflect an awareness that language shapes both legal interpretation and public perception.

2.2 The Policy Rationales

The debate over no-grounds evictions reflects competing policy values. Proponents argue that such flexibility is necessary for landlords to regain possession for legitimate purposes: moving in themselves, selling the property, undertaking major renovations, or simply ending a relationship that is not working. From this perspective, restricting no-grounds terminations interferes with freedom of contract and may discourage property investment, potentially reducing the supply of rental housing.

A more sophisticated version of this argument acknowledges the legitimacy of tenant security concerns while insisting that the proper response is to strengthen other protections — such as rent stabilization and minimum property standards — rather than restricting termination rights. Landlord representatives frequently note that most tenancy relationships end amicably and that no-grounds powers are rarely used, though critics respond that the mere existence of such powers shapes behavior regardless of frequency of use.

Opponents counter that no-grounds evictions create profound housing insecurity. As one research participant told Australian researchers, “The unbelievable rights that landlords have over you creates a constant state of anger and you feel violated. I live in a constant state of fear around housing security”. Another described how “you could just get an email from the landlord at any time, or from the real estate agent, and just like that your whole reality’s shifted”. These testimonies illustrate how the mere possibility of no-grounds termination shapes tenant behavior, discouraging legitimate complaints about disrepair and inhibiting the formation of stable community ties.

2.3 The Retaliatory Eviction Problem

A particular concern is retaliatory eviction — the use of no-grounds provisions to punish tenants who assert their legal rights. A landlord cannot lawfully evict because a tenant complained about repairs, but without a ban on no-grounds evictions, proving retaliatory motive becomes nearly impossible. The landlord need only serve a no-grounds notice; the tenant bears the burden of demonstrating improper purpose, a notoriously difficult evidentiary challenge. This dynamic has led advocates to characterize no-grounds evictions as a structural impediment to tenancy rights enforcement.

Research from both Australia and the United Kingdom has documented the chilling effect of retaliatory eviction concerns. Tenants who believe they have legitimate complaints about property conditions frequently decline to raise them, particularly if they have young children, pets, or other characteristics that might make finding alternative housing difficult. One English tenant told researchers, “I knew the mould was making my son sick, but my landlord had already given me a Section 21 once before. I couldn’t risk it again.” Such testimonies highlight the connection between no-fault eviction powers and the effective enforcement of housing quality standards.

— -

3. The Australian Position: A Patchwork of Protections

3.1 Overview of State and Territory Approaches

Australia’s tenancy laws are state-based, creating what the Per Capita think tank describes as “leaders and stragglers” in the regulation of no-grounds evictions. As of 2024–2025, the position varies substantially across jurisdictions. This patchwork reflects Australia’s federal structure, where housing and tenancy law fall primarily to the states and territories, with the Commonwealth government exercising influence through funding arrangements and national cabinet processes.

The Australian Capital Territory and South Australia have fully prohibited no-grounds evictions, representing the strongest tenant protections in the country. The ACT was the first jurisdiction to move, with reforms taking effect in 2019. South Australia followed with its own comprehensive reforms in 2020–2021. Both jurisdictions require landlords to provide one of several prescribed reasons for termination and permit tenants to challenge termination notices on the basis that the stated reason is not genuine.

Victoria enacted significant restrictions in 2021, requiring landlords to provide one of several prescribed reasons for termination, though with some allowances for the end of a tenant’s first fixed term. Victoria’s approach is notable for granting the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) discretion to refuse termination if it would cause “severe hardship” to the tenant and if the landlord’s interest in termination does not outweigh that hardship. This discretionary power represents an important safeguard absent in some other jurisdictions.

Queensland and Tasmania have ended no-grounds evictions for periodic tenancies but still allow non-renewal at the conclusion of fixed-term agreements. This creates a two-tier system: tenants on periodic agreements have greater security than those who have recently signed fixed terms. Advocates have criticized this distinction, noting that it incentivizes landlords to insist on short fixed terms and to decline periodic rollovers, potentially undermining the reform’s protective purpose.

New South Wales, following legislative amendments effective May 19, 2025, has formally abolished no-grounds evictions, though with important qualifications examined in detail below. The NSW approach represents a middle ground between the strong protections of Victoria and the weaker protections of Western Australia.

Western Australia and the Northern Territory continue to allow no-grounds evictions for both periodic and fixed-term tenancies, making them outliers in the national reform trend. Western Australia requires 30 days’ notice for non-renewal of a fixed-term lease and 60 days for periodic tenancies. The Northern Territory has resisted reform despite advocacy from tenant organizations and some local government bodies. The National Cabinet has adopted “genuine reasonable grounds for eviction” as part of its “better deal for renters” reform agenda, suggesting continued pressure on lagging jurisdictions.

3.2 The New South Wales Reform: Promise and Loophole

New South Wales provides an instructive case study in both the possibilities and perils of tenancy reform. In July 2024, Premier Chris Minns announced that a ban on no-grounds evictions would be introduced, fulfilling a pre-election commitment. When the amendment to the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 took effect on May 19, 2025, tenant advocates celebrated. The new law required landlords to have reasonable grounds for termination, including specific provisions for sale, renovation, personal occupation, and non-use as rental premises.

However, within five weeks, the government quietly amended the regulation to remove additional evidence requirements for the renovation ground. Under the original framework, landlords seeking to evict for “significant repairs or renovations” needed to provide a written statement and at least one piece of corroborating evidence, such as a quote from a licensed builder, a development application, or receipts for building materials. The June 20 amendment eliminated the evidence requirement entirely; landlords now need only provide a written statement of intention.

Twenty-eight tenant advocacy organizations, including Community Legal Centres NSW and the Aboriginal Legal Service, issued a joint declaration criticizing the change. Leo Patterson Ross, CEO of the Tenants’ Union of NSW, stated: “This change means landlords will now only have to provide a written statement, with no supporting evidence, to evict a tenant. This just isn’t enough to guarantee that non-genuine evictions will be prevented”.

The concern is that this creates a “renoviction” loophole — landlords may claim renovation intentions without genuine plans, evict tenants, and then either re-let at higher rents or sell vacant properties. Evidence from Canada, where similar loopholes emerged, suggests this is not merely theoretical. In British Columbia, for example, research found that a substantial proportion of evictions conducted under renovation provisions resulted in properties being re-listed for rent at significantly higher prices rather than undergoing any meaningful renovation.

The NSW government defended the change as “minor,” with Minister of Fair Trading Anoulack Chanthivong stating that “renters are still protected from no-grounds evictions — we have not changed the fact landlords need a legitimate reason to end a lease”. Critics counter that without evidentiary requirements, the “legitimate reason” requirement becomes functionally unenforceable. A written statement of intention, without more, is easily fabricated and difficult to disprove. The tenant would bear the burden of demonstrating that the landlord’s stated intention was not genuine — an evidentiary hurdle that most tenants cannot overcome.

3.3 Other Problematic Grounds

Beyond renovations, researchers have identified other grounds that may undermine the nominal ban on no-grounds evictions. The “offering for sale” ground allows landlords to evict simply to market the property, regardless of whether the buyer would be willing to retain the tenant. This provision attracted attention when Prime Minister Anthony Albanese controversially evicted a tenant to sell his investment property. The “no longer used as rented residential premises” ground permits eviction for conversion to short-term holiday letting platforms like Airbnb.

These grounds share a common feature: they permit termination based on the landlord’s future intentions rather than any conduct by the tenant. While the grounds are facially reasonable — a landlord who genuinely intends to sell or convert a property should not be forced to retain a tenant indefinitely — the evidentiary challenges are substantial. How is a tenant to prove that a landlord does not genuinely intend to sell? What evidence would suffice? Without robust evidentiary requirements, these grounds may function as de facto no-grounds eviction powers.

Furthermore, the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) lacks discretion to decline termination based on tenant hardship. Unlike Victoria, where tribunals can consider whether eviction is “reasonable and proportionate” — resulting in refusals to evict families who would face homelessness — the NSW tribunal must terminate if the landlord establishes a prescribed ground, absent proof of retaliatory motive. This limitation significantly reduces the protective effect of the reforms. A tenant facing homelessness, serious illness, or other exceptional circumstances cannot ask NCAT to weigh those circumstances against the landlord’s interest in possession.

3.4 Research Evidence on Harms

Research conducted by Alan Morris of the University of Technology Sydney and Chris Martin of UNSW Sydney documented the severe impacts of no-grounds evictions on low-income tenants. Their interviews revealed that tenants, acutely aware of their precarious position, moderated their behavior in ways that undermined their basic rights. One interviewee explained that the constant threat prevented them from requesting necessary repairs, for fear of being labeled a “difficult tenant” and receiving a no-grounds notice.

The researchers concluded that while abolishing no-grounds evictions was a “major positive reform,” the remaining grounds for eviction and limited tribunal discretion mean “the power of landlords in NSW is still excessive”. This finding resonates with international evidence suggesting that nominal bans without robust procedural protections may prove insufficient to achieve meaningful security of tenure.

Longitudinal research from jurisdictions that have restricted no-grounds evictions provides additional insights. Studies from Germany, where tenancy security is substantially stronger than in common law jurisdictions, suggest that well-designed protections do not produce the dire supply-side consequences that some opponents predict. While rental markets in strong-protection jurisdictions face their own challenges — affordability remains a pressing concern — the predicted collapse of private rental investment has not materialized.

— -

4. The United Kingdom: Abolishing Section 21

4.1 The Section 21 Mechanism

Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 has governed no-fault evictions in England and Wales for nearly four decades. The provision allows landlords to regain possession of properties let under Assured Shorthold Tenancies without establishing any grounds, provided they give at least two months’ written notice using the prescribed Form 6A. Landlords cannot serve Section 21 notices during the fixed term unless a break clause exists, and various preconditions must be satisfied: protected deposits, gas safety certificates, and Energy Performance Certificates, among others.

A distinctive feature of Section 21 is the “accelerated possession procedure,” which allows landlords to obtain possession orders without a court hearing where the claim is undefended. This process can be substantially faster than standard possession proceedings, though it does not permit claims for rent arrears. For landlords seeking both possession and arrears, a strategic decision must be made: pursue accelerated possession for speed and a separate money claim for arrears, or proceed under Section 8 for a combined order.

The Section 21 regime has been heavily utilized. Official statistics from the Ministry of Justice show that Section 21 claims consistently outnumber Section 8 claims, accounting for the majority of landlord-initiated possession proceedings in England and Wales. This prevalence reflects the procedural advantages of no-fault eviction: faster processing, fewer evidentiary requirements, and no need to prove tenant breach. For many landlords, Section 21 has become the default mechanism for ending tenancies, even where grounds for Section 8 might exist.

4.2 The Long Road to Reform

The campaign to abolish Section 21 has extended over nearly a decade. The former Conservative government first announced abolition plans in 2019, introducing the Renters’ Reform Bill to Parliament. That bill progressed through multiple stages but ultimately lapsed when Parliament was dissolved before the July 2024 general election. The Conservative government’s commitment to abolition was always somewhat uncertain, with various delays and modifications proposed along the way.

The incoming Labour government signaled its intention to proceed with reform but on a new legislative footing. The King’s Speech following the election confirmed that a Renters’ Rights Bill would be introduced to “overhaul the private rented sector”. As of mid-2025, the bill was progressing through Parliament, with Royal Assent expected in autumn 2025 and implementation beginning in early to mid-2026.

The long timeline from first announcement to expected implementation — nearly seven years — reflects both the complexity of the reform and the political sensitivity of landlord-tenant relations. Landlord organizations have lobbied extensively against abolition, warning of supply reductions and increased litigation. Tenant advocates have responded that security of tenure is a fundamental right that should not be sacrificed to maintain landlord flexibility.

4.3 The Renters’ Rights Bill 2025: Key Provisions

The Renters’ Rights Bill represents the most significant reform to English housing law in a generation. Its provisions can be grouped into three categories: abolition of no-fault evictions, restructuring of tenancy types, and amendment of Section 8 grounds.

Abolition of Section 21: The bill eliminates no-fault evictions entirely. All possession claims must henceforth proceed under Section 8 of the Housing Act 1988, requiring landlords to establish specified grounds. The accelerated possession procedure, tied exclusively to Section 21, disappears with it. Landlords who previously relied on Section 21 for speed and certainty must adjust to the more demanding Section 8 framework.

End of Assured Shorthold Tenancies: The bill phases out fixed-term ASTs entirely. All new tenancies become Assured Periodic Tenancies — open-ended agreements rolling month-to-month or week-to-week. Tenants gain the flexibility to leave with two months’ notice, while landlords lose the ability to rely on fixed-term expiry as a basis for possession. This aspect of the reform has attracted less attention than Section 21 abolition but is substantively important: by eliminating fixed terms, the bill removes the temporal boundary at which tenancies would naturally end, making possession dependent entirely on establishing grounds.

Amended Section 8 Grounds: The bill modifies existing grounds and introduces new ones. For rent arrears (Ground 8), the threshold increases from two to three months’ arrears (or thirteen weeks for weekly payments), and notice periods extend from two to four weeks. Notably, arrears resulting from Universal Credit payment delays are excluded from calculations. New mandatory grounds include sale of the property (Ground 1A) and landlord/family occupation (Ground 1), though neither can be invoked within the first twelve months of a tenancy. For serious anti-social behavior or criminal convictions (Ground 7A), no notice period applies — landlords may proceed directly to possession proceedings.

4.4 Anticipated Consequences and Criticisms

The abolition of Section 21 has generated substantial commentary from legal practitioners, academics, and housing advocates. Several anticipated consequences warrant examination.

Court Capacity: The most frequently expressed concern relates to court capacity. Section 8 claims are inherently more complex than Section 21 claims, requiring evidence of grounds, consideration of defenses, and potentially witness testimony. The Ministry of Justice estimates that caseloads could increase by 30–50 percent, raising questions about whether the court system can absorb this volume without substantial delays. Landlord organizations have warned that possession proceedings could stretch from weeks to months, leaving landlords unable to regain possession even for legitimate reasons.

Defensive Practices: Some analysts predict that landlords will respond to increased difficulty of possession by tightening tenant screening, requiring guarantors, or exiting the market altogether. The extent of such responses is contested. Evidence from Scotland, which abolished no-fault evictions in 2017, suggests modest rather than dramatic effects on landlord behavior. Scottish landlord surveys indicate increased caution in tenant selection but no widespread withdrawal from the rental market.

Loophole Risks: As in NSW, there are concerns about loopholes. The new mandatory grounds for sale and landlord occupation could be used pretextually. A landlord wishing to evict without reason might simply claim an intention to sell, then relist the property for rent after vacant possession is obtained. The bill attempts to address this risk through penalties for misuse, but enforcement depends on tenant complaints and local authority action, both of which may be limited.

Enforcement Resources: A persistent criticism of the bill, raised by housing charities including Shelter and Crisis, is that it does not sufficiently resource enforcement. Prohibiting no-fault evictions is meaningless without effective mechanisms to detect and penalize non-compliance. Local authorities, responsible for enforcement, face severe budget constraints. Without dedicated enforcement funding, the bill’s protections may remain largely theoretical.

— -

5. Comparative Analysis: Australia and the United Kingdom

5.1 Similarities and Differences

The Australian and United Kingdom approaches to no-grounds eviction reform share common features but diverge in important respects. Both jurisdictions are moving decisively away from no-fault termination, recognizing the housing insecurity it creates. Both are grappling with the challenge of designing alternative grounds that provide legitimate landlord flexibility while preventing pretextual evictions. Both face implementation challenges related to court capacity, enforcement resources, and the risk of loopholes.

The divergence lies primarily in the structure of the reformed systems. The United Kingdom is pursuing a comprehensive overhaul: abolishing not only Section 21 but also the fixed-term tenancy structure that has dominated English renting for decades. The new Assured Periodic Tenancy regime represents a fundamental reconceptualization of the landlord-tenant relationship, moving from a time-limited contractual model to an open-ended relational model.

Australia, by contrast, is pursuing state-based incremental reform. No jurisdiction has abolished fixed-term tenancies; even the strongest protections maintain the basic structure of fixed terms followed by periodic tenancies. The Australian approach is thus more conservative, preserving the contractual framework while modifying the grounds for non-renewal. This incrementalism has advantages — it is politically easier and allows for adjustment based on experience — but may be insufficient to achieve the security that advocates seek.

5.2 The Evidentiary Question

The most significant difference between the Australian and UK approaches concerns evidentiary requirements. NSW’s removal of evidence requirements for renovation evictions illustrates the vulnerability of reforms that rely solely on landlord statements of intention. The UK bill attempts to address this through penalties for misuse, but penalties depend on detection, and detection depends on tenant complaints or local authority inspection.

Victoria’s approach — granting tribunals discretion to consider hardship and requiring landlords to prove genuine intention — may represent a best practice middle ground. The Victorian model does not require corroborating evidence for every ground but empowers the tribunal to inquire into genuineness where the tenant raises a credible challenge. This places the evidentiary burden appropriately: the landlord bears the ultimate burden of establishing the ground, but the tenant must provide some basis for questioning the landlord’s stated intention.

The UK bill’s prohibition on sale and landlord occupation grounds within the first twelve months of a tenancy represents another approach to the evidentiary problem. By imposing a temporal limitation, the bill makes it more difficult to use these grounds pretextually — a landlord who claims an intention to sell immediately after a tenant complains about repairs will face the hurdle of explaining why the sale intention did not exist earlier. Temporal limitations do not eliminate the evidentiary problem but they raise the cost of pretextual evictions.

5.3 Lessons for Reform

Several lessons emerge from the comparative analysis. First, banning no-grounds evictions is necessary but not sufficient. Without robust evidentiary requirements, landlords can achieve the same practical result by invoking grounds that are difficult to disprove. The NSW experience with renovation evictions is a cautionary tale: a well-intentioned reform can be substantially undermined by subsequent regulatory changes that weaken evidentiary standards.

Second, tribunal discretion matters. The ability to consider tenant hardship and to weigh the landlord’s interest against the consequences of eviction provides a safety valve that protects the most vulnerable tenants. Jurisdictions that mandate termination upon proof of grounds, without hardship discretion, risk causing severe harm even when the landlord’s ground is genuine.

Third, enforcement resources are critical. The most carefully designed protections are worthless without effective enforcement. Both Australia and the UK face challenges in this regard: tenant advocates are under-resourced, local authorities are stretched thin, and courts are overburdened. Reform packages must include dedicated enforcement funding, or the promised protections will remain illusory.

Fourth, the fixed-term tenancy structure deserves attention. The UK’s decision to abolish fixed terms is bold but perhaps necessary. As long as tenancies have natural expiration dates, landlords can achieve de facto no-fault eviction by simply refusing renewal. The Australian approach of maintaining fixed terms while restricting non-renewal grounds is likely to produce strategic behavior, with landlords insisting on shorter fixed terms and tenants facing frequent renewal decisions.

— -

6. Policy Recommendations and Conclusion

6.1 Recommendations for Policymakers

Based on the comparative analysis presented in this paper, the following recommendations are offered for policymakers considering no-grounds eviction reform:

Recommendation 1: Prohibit no-grounds evictions entirely, without exception for the end of fixed terms. The distinction between fixed-term non-renewal and periodic termination is functionally meaningless for tenant security. Reform must cover both.

Recommendation 2: Require corroborating evidence for all grounds that depend on landlord future intentions. A landlord who claims an intention to renovate, sell, or occupy personally should provide documentary evidence — quotes, listing agreements, sworn statements — that can be tested before a tribunal.

Recommendation 3: Grant tribunals discretion to consider tenant hardship and to refuse termination where the landlord’s interest does not outweigh the consequences of eviction. Mandatory termination provisions cause unnecessary harm.

Recommendation 4: Fund enforcement adequately. Local authorities need resources to investigate suspicious evictions, penalize non-compliance, and assist tenants in asserting their rights. Without enforcement funding, reform is theatre.

Recommendation 5: Monitor and evaluate. Reform should include data collection and reporting requirements to track outcomes: eviction rates, tribunal decisions, landlord behavior, and tenant experiences. Evidence-based adjustment is essential.

6.2 Conclusion

No-grounds evictions, or no-fault evictions as they are increasingly termed, have been a defining feature of common law residential tenancy regimes for decades. The ability of a landlord to terminate a tenancy without providing any reason, subject only to notice requirements, has given landlords substantial power over tenants and has created profound housing insecurity for millions of renters.

The global trend toward restricting or abolishing no-grounds evictions represents a recognition that security of tenure is a fundamental aspect of housing as a home, not merely as an asset. Australia and the United Kingdom are at the forefront of this trend, with multiple Australian states having banned or restricted no-grounds evictions and the United Kingdom on the verge of abolishing Section 21 entirely.

Yet the comparative analysis reveals that reform is not straightforward. The NSW experience with renovation evictions — where evidence requirements were removed within weeks of the ban taking effect — illustrates the vulnerability of well-intentioned reforms to subsequent weakening. The UK’s long road to Section 21 abolition demonstrates the political difficulty of confronting landlord interests. The persistence of loopholes and the inadequacy of enforcement resources suggest that even where reform is enacted, its protective effects may be limited.

The challenge for policymakers is to design reforms that are both politically achievable and substantively effective. This requires attention to evidentiary requirements, tribunal discretion, enforcement resources, and the underlying structure of fixed-term tenancies. It requires recognizing that security of tenure is not an all-or-nothing proposition but a continuum, and that well-designed protections can balance landlord and tenant interests without causing the dire supply-side consequences that opponents predict.

The movement to abolish no-grounds evictions is ultimately a movement to rebalance the landlord-tenant relationship, to recognize that a home is different from other forms of property, and to ensure that tenants can live without the constant fear of a notice that needs no reason. The legal architecture for achieving this balance exists; the political will to implement it remains the central challenge.

— -

References

Australian Capital Territory Government. (2019). Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (ACT).

Crisis & Shelter. (2024). Briefing on the Renters’ Rights Bill. London: Crisis.

Martin, C., & Morris, A. (2023). “No Grounds Evictions in New South Wales: Impacts and Reforms.” UNSW Law Journal, 46(2), 450–478.

Ministry of Justice (UK). (2024). Possession Claims Statistics, Quarterly. London: HMSO.

Morris, A., & Martin, C. (2022). “The Constant Worry: How No Grounds Evictions Affect Low-Income Tenants.” Housing Studies, 37(4), 612–631.

New South Wales Government. (2025). Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2025 (NSW).

Northern Territory Government. (2024). Residential Tenancies Act 1999 (NT).

Patterson Ross, L. (2025). “Renoviction Loopholes in NSW Tenancy Reform.” Tenants’ Union of NSW Policy Brief, June 2025.

Per Capita. (2024). Leaders and Stragglers: Comparing Australian Tenancy Laws. Melbourne: Per Capita.

Queensland Government. (2024). Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld).

Redfern Legal Centre. (2024). Fact Sheet: No Grounds Evictions in NSW. Sydney: RLC.

South Australian Government. (2021). Residential Tenancies Act 1995 (SA).

Tasmanian Government. (2023). Residential Tenancy Act 1997 (Tas).

UK Parliament. (2025). Renters’ Rights Bill 2024–25 (HL Bill 12).

Victorian Government. (2021). Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (Vic).

Western Australian Government. (2024). Residential Tenancies Act 1987 (WA).

Acts:

• Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (ACT) — Australian Capital Territory (amended 2019)
• Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) — New South Wales (amended 2025)
• Residential Tenancies Act 1999 (NT) — Northern Territory
• Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) — Queensland (amended 2024)
• Residential Tenancies Act 1995 (SA) — South Australia (amended 2020–2021)
• Residential Tenancy Act 1997 (Tas) — Tasmania (amended 2023)
• Residential Tenancies Act 1997 (Vic) — Victoria (amended 2021)
• Residential Tenancies Act 1987 (WA) — Western Australia
• Housing Act 1988 — United Kingdom (England and Wales) — Section 21
• Renters’ Rights Bill 2024–25 (HL Bill 12) — United Kingdom (England and Wales) — pending Royal Assent
• Residential Tenancy Act, RSBC 2002, c. 78 — British Columbia, Canada (comparative reference)

— -

Appendix: Summary Table of Australian Jurisdictions

| Jurisdiction | No-Grounds Evictions Prohibited? | Fixed-Term Exemption? | Evidentiary Requirements | Hardship Discretion |

| — — — — — — — | — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — | — — — — — — — — — — -| — — — — — — — — — — — — | — — — — — — — — — — -|

| ACT | Yes | No | Written statement required | Yes |

| South Australia | Yes | No | Written statement required | Limited |

| Victoria | Partial (first term only) | Yes | Written statement required | Yes |

| Queensland | Partial (periodic only) | Yes | Written statement required | Limited |

| Tasmania | Partial (periodic only) | Yes | Written statement required | Limited |

| New South Wales | Nominal (loopholes exist) | No | Written statement only (no evidence) | No |

| Western Australia | No | N/A | N/A | N/A |

| Northern Territory | No | N/A | N/A | N/A |

— -

This paper was completed in March 2026. All legislative references are current as of that date, though readers should note that tenancy law reforms continue to evolve rapidly in both Australia and the United Kingdom.