What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4539609 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders name suppression to continue for the tenants.

How much money was awarded in case 4539609?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4539609?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4539609?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10457625-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4539609 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders name suppression to continue for the tenants.

How much money was awarded in case 4539609?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4539609?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4539609?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10457625-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

67B Thurleigh Grove, Karori, Wellington 6012 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4539609 — Exemplary damages

Order

The Tribunal orders name suppression to continue for the tenants.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by a director of the Landlord company, on the ground that the tenants have discriminated against her.
Both parties appeared at the video hearing today.

BACKGROUND

The parties entered in to a fixed term tenancy commencing on 1 February 2022, due to end on 31 January 2023. The landlord is a company.
On 22 November 2023 the landlord issued notices to the tenants advising she would not continue the fixed term tenancy beyond 31 January 2023.
On 28 November 2022 the landlord issued a further notice to terminate the fixed-term tenancy as of 31 January 2023, on the grounds that the owner wished to move back into the premises.
On 2 January 2023 the tenants confirmed they would not be continuing the tenancy beyond the fixed term period.
The tenants filed an application in the Tenancy Tribunal against the landlord. On 28 March 2023 the Tribunal (Adjudicator Henwood) issued a decision on the tenant’s application. The Tribunal ordered the landlord pay exemplary damages on the basis that it issued an invalid and retaliatory termination notice. However the Tribunal declined to order compensation for stress and inconvenience claimed by the tenants.
Ms Dai appealed the Tribunal’s decision. The appeal was unsuccessful, the Tribunal’s decision was confirmed.

LANDLORDS CASE

Ms Dai confirmed that she is seeking exemplary damages for a breach of section 12 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The landlord considers that the tenants became malicious, including claiming exemplary damages against the landlord. The landlord considers there are racial undertones in the actions of the tenants, and that their actions are only intended to seek monetary compensation.
The landlord considers that the tenants have looked into personal information of the landlord.
The landlord also considers that the actions from the tenants in relation to a painter she had were because the painter was Vietnamese, and Ms Dai was concerned that the tenants would act the same toward her as English was also her second language. Ms Dai states that the painter found the tenants to be ‘unfriendly’.

TENANTS CASE

The tenants submit that the issues raised by the landlord have been previously adjudicated at the earlier hearing before adjudicator Henwood.
The tenants state that the information they found in relation to the landlord was all publicly available.
In short the tenants dispute that they had discriminated against anybody.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.

ANALYSIS

The landlord seeks exemplary damages for what she says was discrimination on the part of the tenants, being a breach of section 12 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Section 12 holds: 12 Discrimination to be unlawful act (1) Each of the following is hereby declared to be an unlawful act: (a) discrimination against any person in respect of the grant, continuance, extension, variation, termination, or renewal of a tenancy agreement in contravention of the Human Rights Act 1993; and (b) the giving of an instruction or the stating of an intention in contravention of subsection (2).
In this case section 12(1)(a) would be relevant.
In order to obtain an order for exemplary damages, Ms Dai must prove that the tenants discriminated against her or any other person in relation to the continuance or termination of the tenancy agreement, and that this discrimination is a contravention of the Human Rights Act 1993.
From what understand, Ms Dai considers that the tenants decided not to continue the tenancy because she and the painters are Asian, when the tenants are European. For example, the landlord states in her application to the Tribunal: Order for exemplary damages becasue of tenants' racial discrimination when the landlord exercised its right of termination in good faith. Also, the tenant was OK with a caucasian tradesman but had been difficult towards a Vietnamese tradesman. This further proved serious racial discrimination problems.
The position taken by the landlord is somewhat perplexing. The landlord considers that the tenants discriminated against her because they gave a notice ending the tenancy, but it was the landlord who had given the first notice to end the tenancy, and the landlord proceeded to the District Court arguing her notice was valid. It is not clear to me how the landlord can have it both ways, that is to say she had given a valid termination notice, but then the tenants decision to move out was based on discrimination.
But putting that to one side, the landlord has simply provided no evidence that the actions of the tenants were in some way discriminatory toward her or any other person, and I cannot see any basis to draw a remote inference of discrimination.
To argue that the actions of the tenants in declining to continue with the tenancy (again noting the landlord earlier issued a termination notice) based on an email from a tradesman that the tenants were “unfriendly” is a long bow to draw. That evidence does not come close to proving likely discrimination on the part of the tenants.
Having considered the communications on file, my impression is that the relationship between the parties had severely broken down, which likely played a role in the tenant’s decision to leave the tenancy. Once the fixed term tenancy came to an end at the end of the fixed-term period, the tenancy automatically rolled into a periodic tenancy. It has long been a feature of tenancy law that tenants in a periodic tenancy can end a periodic tenancy by giving the landlord notice. Therefore even if the landlord had not earlier issued the termination notice, the tenants were entirely within their rights to decide they did not wish to continue the tenancy, thereby giving the landlord notice.
Finally, the landlord wished to argue today, that the actions of the tenants were malicious, intending to seek money. Of course, the application filed by the tenants was successful in the Tribunal and also confirmed on appeal to the District Court. That strongly argues against the tenant’s application being illegitimate in some way.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the landlord has applied for name suppression, but because she has had no measure of success, name suppression for the landlord is declined.
However because the Tribunal has previously ordered name suppression to the tenants, and given this decision refers to that earlier order, I will continue the name suppression order for the tenants.

Order

The Tribunal orders name suppression to continue for the tenants.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by a director of the Landlord company, on the ground that the tenants have discriminated against her.
Both parties appeared at the video hearing today.

BACKGROUND

The parties entered in to a fixed term tenancy commencing on 1 February 2022, due to end on 31 January 2023. The landlord is a company.
On 22 November 2023 the landlord issued notices to the tenants advising she would not continue the fixed term tenancy beyond 31 January 2023.
On 28 November 2022 the landlord issued a further notice to terminate the fixed-term tenancy as of 31 January 2023, on the grounds that the owner wished to move back into the premises.
On 2 January 2023 the tenants confirmed they would not be continuing the tenancy beyond the fixed term period.
The tenants filed an application in the Tenancy Tribunal against the landlord. On 28 March 2023 the Tribunal (Adjudicator Henwood) issued a decision on the tenant’s application. The Tribunal ordered the landlord pay exemplary damages on the basis that it issued an invalid and retaliatory termination notice. However the Tribunal declined to order compensation for stress and inconvenience claimed by the tenants.
Ms Dai appealed the Tribunal’s decision. The appeal was unsuccessful, the Tribunal’s decision was confirmed.

LANDLORDS CASE

Ms Dai confirmed that she is seeking exemplary damages for a breach of section 12 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The landlord considers that the tenants became malicious, including claiming exemplary damages against the landlord. The landlord considers there are racial undertones in the actions of the tenants, and that their actions are only intended to seek monetary compensation.
The landlord considers that the tenants have looked into personal information of the landlord.
The landlord also considers that the actions from the tenants in relation to a painter she had were because the painter was Vietnamese, and Ms Dai was concerned that the tenants would act the same toward her as English was also her second language. Ms Dai states that the painter found the tenants to be ‘unfriendly’.

TENANTS CASE

The tenants submit that the issues raised by the landlord have been previously adjudicated at the earlier hearing before adjudicator Henwood.
The tenants state that the information they found in relation to the landlord was all publicly available.
In short the tenants dispute that they had discriminated against anybody.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.

ANALYSIS

The landlord seeks exemplary damages for what she says was discrimination on the part of the tenants, being a breach of section 12 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). Section 12 holds: 12 Discrimination to be unlawful act (1) Each of the following is hereby declared to be an unlawful act: (a) discrimination against any person in respect of the grant, continuance, extension, variation, termination, or renewal of a tenancy agreement in contravention of the Human Rights Act 1993; and (b) the giving of an instruction or the stating of an intention in contravention of subsection (2).
In this case section 12(1)(a) would be relevant.
In order to obtain an order for exemplary damages, Ms Dai must prove that the tenants discriminated against her or any other person in relation to the continuance or termination of the tenancy agreement, and that this discrimination is a contravention of the Human Rights Act 1993.
From what understand, Ms Dai considers that the tenants decided not to continue the tenancy because she and the painters are Asian, when the tenants are European. For example, the landlord states in her application to the Tribunal: Order for exemplary damages becasue of tenants' racial discrimination when the landlord exercised its right of termination in good faith. Also, the tenant was OK with a caucasian tradesman but had been difficult towards a Vietnamese tradesman. This further proved serious racial discrimination problems.
The position taken by the landlord is somewhat perplexing. The landlord considers that the tenants discriminated against her because they gave a notice ending the tenancy, but it was the landlord who had given the first notice to end the tenancy, and the landlord proceeded to the District Court arguing her notice was valid. It is not clear to me how the landlord can have it both ways, that is to say she had given a valid termination notice, but then the tenants decision to move out was based on discrimination.
But putting that to one side, the landlord has simply provided no evidence that the actions of the tenants were in some way discriminatory toward her or any other person, and I cannot see any basis to draw a remote inference of discrimination.
To argue that the actions of the tenants in declining to continue with the tenancy (again noting the landlord earlier issued a termination notice) based on an email from a tradesman that the tenants were “unfriendly” is a long bow to draw. That evidence does not come close to proving likely discrimination on the part of the tenants.
Having considered the communications on file, my impression is that the relationship between the parties had severely broken down, which likely played a role in the tenant’s decision to leave the tenancy. Once the fixed term tenancy came to an end at the end of the fixed-term period, the tenancy automatically rolled into a periodic tenancy. It has long been a feature of tenancy law that tenants in a periodic tenancy can end a periodic tenancy by giving the landlord notice. Therefore even if the landlord had not earlier issued the termination notice, the tenants were entirely within their rights to decide they did not wish to continue the tenancy, thereby giving the landlord notice.
Finally, the landlord wished to argue today, that the actions of the tenants were malicious, intending to seek money. Of course, the application filed by the tenants was successful in the Tribunal and also confirmed on appeal to the District Court. That strongly argues against the tenant’s application being illegitimate in some way.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the landlord has applied for name suppression, but because she has had no measure of success, name suppression for the landlord is declined.
However because the Tribunal has previously ordered name suppression to the tenants, and given this decision refers to that earlier order, I will continue the name suppression order for the tenants.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4539609 — Exemplary damages at 67B Thurleigh Grove, Karori, Wellington 6012

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4539609 — Exemplary damages at 67B Thurleigh Grove, Karori, Wellington 6012

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

LANDLORDS CASE

TENANTS CASE

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

LANDLORDS CASE

TENANTS CASE

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions