What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4836200 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4836200?

Disbursements: $3,500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4836200?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4836200?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12406971-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4836200 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4836200?

Disbursements: $3,500.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4836200?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4836200?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12406971-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

56 Upper Stanley Brook Road, Stanley Brook, RD 2, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4836200 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4836200 — net $3,500.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Disbursements	$3,500.00	Disbursements
Net award	$3,500.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,500.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Rent Shop Limited and Peter Ericson must pay [The tenant/s] $3,500.00 immediately.

Reasons

The Tribunal heard this matter on 21 August 2025.The Tribunal subsequently issued an order in favour of the tenant on 14 September 2025. Under that order, the landlord was ordered to pay $3,630.06 to the tenant.
The tenant having been successful in this matter, the parties were required to file memoranda in regard to costs and disbursements. Law
Section 102(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides that; “Except in the case to which any of subsections (2), (4), or (5) apply, the Tribunal shall have no power to award costs to or against any party to proceedings before it”.
Section 102(2)(b) RTA provides that the Tribunal may award costs “Where any of the parties is represented by counsel”
The landlord was represented by counsel in these proceedings. The tenant was not represented by counsel at the hearing.
Section 102(3)(b) RTA provides that where subsection (2) applies, the Tribunal may order a party to pay to the other party the “reasonable costs of that other party in connection with the proceedings”.
The usual practice, endorsed in cases such as Holden Agricultural Finishes v Holden [1997] 3 NZLR and French v Ryan [2011] NZDC 160 is that a successful party receives at most, a reasonable contribution to actual costs, and only where that contribution is justified in all the circumstances of the case. In Holden (supra) the High Court considered a range between 40% to 70% of actual costs was generally considered reasonable.
It is trite law to say that costs follow the event. In this case the tenant has been successful. Tenant’s costs
The tenant’s memoranda as to costs seeks a range of compensation. This order relates to the disbursements incurred in relation to the hearing which occurred on 21 August 2025 only.
The tenant seeks costs for the “Tribunal’s mishandling of the case” by which I presume the tenant means the order made by the Tribunal dated 28 August 2024 and the subsequent and unsuccessful rehearing application.
Those Tribunal decisions were successfully appealed by the tenant (see [case citation redacted]. The District Court invited the parties to file costs memoranda on that appeal. I do not know the outcome of the costs order of the District Court, suffice to say that the issue of costs relating to previous hearings is not a matter for consideration by the Tribunal now. The issue of costs for me the Tribunal to consider is the costs and disbursements of the hearing on 21 August 2025.
The tenant filed a written submission as to costs. The tenant seeks compensation for issues that were dealt with in the Tribunal’s order dated 14 September 2025. The tenant seeks compensation under her costs application for (amongst other claims) exemplary damages, punitive damages and “severe mental health impact.” It is not appropriate for the Tribunal to reconsider those issues as part of a costs order, as they were dealt with in the substantive order of the Tribunal.
The tenant has applied for disbursements for the expense of expert witnesses and photocopying. The relevant disbursements applied for are; [Consultant]’s report$1,500.00 [report]$2,875.00 [witness] costs$603.75 Photocopying and printing$122.60 Total$5,101.35
Invoices were provided by the tenant in support of these claims. The disbursements were an appropriate cost incurred by the tenant in bringing these proceedings. Landlord’s submissions on costs
The landlord has filed a submission on costs. The submission is dated 26 September 2025.
The submission records that an offer in full and final settlement was made by the landlord to the tenant on 13 February 2025. The offer was made on a “without prejudice save as to costs basis.”
The offer was: ▪ The landlord would pay $10,000.00 to the tenant. ▪ Costs would lie where they fell. ▪ The agreement would remain confidential and there was an agreement of mutual non disparagement ▪ The appeal would be withdrawn with no issue as to costs.
The letter records that “If [the tenant/s] is minded to continue with the Court proceedings, this letter will be used as a Calderbank offer in respect of costs ....”.
It is of relevance to note that the letter from the landlord’s solicitors was sent to the tenant’s then lawyers. As such, the tenant had the opportunity to take such legal advice as she considered appropriate at that time.
The Courts treat Calderbank offers through the lens of reasonableness at the time of the offer, not with hindsight. In Bowden v Bowden [2017] NZHC 1841 the offer remained open for five weeks, gave the appellant “ample opportunity to take advice” and was “in hindsight...generous”. Mander J held that, “because it would have left her markedly better off: there was no reasonable justification for rejecting the offer” and ordinary costs were uplifted.
The High Court decision in Weaver v Auckland City Council [2016] NZHC 473 provides a practical checklist. When weighing a refusal to accept a Calderbank offer, the judge looks at (among other things) the size and timing of the offer, the party’s ability to assess merit, preparation already done, and whether the case turned on uncertain law; the touch stone remains whether rejection “...unnecessarily contributed to the time or expense of the proceedings,”
The first point is timing. The High Court in Bloor v IAG NZ Ltd [2007] NZHC625 confirms that a two-day acceptance window is inadequate even for represented parties. A self-represented tenant will require greater time to consider the offer.
The offer in this case was made by letter dated 13 February 2025, at a time when the tenant was represented. The offer was open for five working days. The time for the tenant to consider the offer in consultation with her then lawyer was not unreasonable.
The next issue is whether the case turned on uncertain law. This was uncertain area of law. The District Court’s appeal decision in [case name redacted] (supra) varied the Tribunal’s previous approach to potable water claims, so as to render it essentially a strict liability issue. The tenant’s decision on whether to accept the offer (at a time when that appeal decision had not been made) is understandable.
A litigant who spurns a generous and timely offer may be penalised, but the yardstick is always whether refusal “unnecessarily contributed to the time or expense of the proceeding. In light of the District Court’s appeal decision in this matter, I find that the tenant’s decision not to accept the landlord’s Calderbank offer did not substantially contribute to the time and expense of the proceeding in a manner which was unreasonable.
When considering the competing requirements of an unsuccessful party to make a reasonable contribution towards costs and disbursements, with the landlord’s Calderbank offer, which was declined, but not unreasonably so, I consider that a contribution of $3,500.00 towards the tenant’s disbursements is appropriate. The landlord is ordered to pay disbursements of $3,500.00 to the tenant.
The previous order as to name suppression remains in force. The tenant’s name is supressed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4836200 — net $3,500.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Disbursements	$3,500.00	Disbursements
Net award	$3,500.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,500.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Rent Shop Limited and Peter Ericson must pay [The tenant/s] $3,500.00 immediately.

Reasons

The Tribunal heard this matter on 21 August 2025.The Tribunal subsequently issued an order in favour of the tenant on 14 September 2025. Under that order, the landlord was ordered to pay $3,630.06 to the tenant.
The tenant having been successful in this matter, the parties were required to file memoranda in regard to costs and disbursements. Law
Section 102(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides that; “Except in the case to which any of subsections (2), (4), or (5) apply, the Tribunal shall have no power to award costs to or against any party to proceedings before it”.
Section 102(2)(b) RTA provides that the Tribunal may award costs “Where any of the parties is represented by counsel”
The landlord was represented by counsel in these proceedings. The tenant was not represented by counsel at the hearing.
Section 102(3)(b) RTA provides that where subsection (2) applies, the Tribunal may order a party to pay to the other party the “reasonable costs of that other party in connection with the proceedings”.
The usual practice, endorsed in cases such as Holden Agricultural Finishes v Holden [1997] 3 NZLR and French v Ryan [2011] NZDC 160 is that a successful party receives at most, a reasonable contribution to actual costs, and only where that contribution is justified in all the circumstances of the case. In Holden (supra) the High Court considered a range between 40% to 70% of actual costs was generally considered reasonable.
It is trite law to say that costs follow the event. In this case the tenant has been successful. Tenant’s costs
The tenant’s memoranda as to costs seeks a range of compensation. This order relates to the disbursements incurred in relation to the hearing which occurred on 21 August 2025 only.
The tenant seeks costs for the “Tribunal’s mishandling of the case” by which I presume the tenant means the order made by the Tribunal dated 28 August 2024 and the subsequent and unsuccessful rehearing application.
Those Tribunal decisions were successfully appealed by the tenant (see [case citation redacted]. The District Court invited the parties to file costs memoranda on that appeal. I do not know the outcome of the costs order of the District Court, suffice to say that the issue of costs relating to previous hearings is not a matter for consideration by the Tribunal now. The issue of costs for me the Tribunal to consider is the costs and disbursements of the hearing on 21 August 2025.
The tenant filed a written submission as to costs. The tenant seeks compensation for issues that were dealt with in the Tribunal’s order dated 14 September 2025. The tenant seeks compensation under her costs application for (amongst other claims) exemplary damages, punitive damages and “severe mental health impact.” It is not appropriate for the Tribunal to reconsider those issues as part of a costs order, as they were dealt with in the substantive order of the Tribunal.
The tenant has applied for disbursements for the expense of expert witnesses and photocopying. The relevant disbursements applied for are; [Consultant]’s report$1,500.00 [report]$2,875.00 [witness] costs$603.75 Photocopying and printing$122.60 Total$5,101.35
Invoices were provided by the tenant in support of these claims. The disbursements were an appropriate cost incurred by the tenant in bringing these proceedings. Landlord’s submissions on costs
The landlord has filed a submission on costs. The submission is dated 26 September 2025.
The submission records that an offer in full and final settlement was made by the landlord to the tenant on 13 February 2025. The offer was made on a “without prejudice save as to costs basis.”
The offer was: ▪ The landlord would pay $10,000.00 to the tenant. ▪ Costs would lie where they fell. ▪ The agreement would remain confidential and there was an agreement of mutual non disparagement ▪ The appeal would be withdrawn with no issue as to costs.
The letter records that “If [the tenant/s] is minded to continue with the Court proceedings, this letter will be used as a Calderbank offer in respect of costs ....”.
It is of relevance to note that the letter from the landlord’s solicitors was sent to the tenant’s then lawyers. As such, the tenant had the opportunity to take such legal advice as she considered appropriate at that time.
The Courts treat Calderbank offers through the lens of reasonableness at the time of the offer, not with hindsight. In Bowden v Bowden [2017] NZHC 1841 the offer remained open for five weeks, gave the appellant “ample opportunity to take advice” and was “in hindsight...generous”. Mander J held that, “because it would have left her markedly better off: there was no reasonable justification for rejecting the offer” and ordinary costs were uplifted.
The High Court decision in Weaver v Auckland City Council [2016] NZHC 473 provides a practical checklist. When weighing a refusal to accept a Calderbank offer, the judge looks at (among other things) the size and timing of the offer, the party’s ability to assess merit, preparation already done, and whether the case turned on uncertain law; the touch stone remains whether rejection “...unnecessarily contributed to the time or expense of the proceedings,”
The first point is timing. The High Court in Bloor v IAG NZ Ltd [2007] NZHC625 confirms that a two-day acceptance window is inadequate even for represented parties. A self-represented tenant will require greater time to consider the offer.
The offer in this case was made by letter dated 13 February 2025, at a time when the tenant was represented. The offer was open for five working days. The time for the tenant to consider the offer in consultation with her then lawyer was not unreasonable.
The next issue is whether the case turned on uncertain law. This was uncertain area of law. The District Court’s appeal decision in [case name redacted] (supra) varied the Tribunal’s previous approach to potable water claims, so as to render it essentially a strict liability issue. The tenant’s decision on whether to accept the offer (at a time when that appeal decision had not been made) is understandable.
A litigant who spurns a generous and timely offer may be penalised, but the yardstick is always whether refusal “unnecessarily contributed to the time or expense of the proceeding. In light of the District Court’s appeal decision in this matter, I find that the tenant’s decision not to accept the landlord’s Calderbank offer did not substantially contribute to the time and expense of the proceeding in a manner which was unreasonable.
When considering the competing requirements of an unsuccessful party to make a reasonable contribution towards costs and disbursements, with the landlord’s Calderbank offer, which was declined, but not unreasonably so, I consider that a contribution of $3,500.00 towards the tenant’s disbursements is appropriate. The landlord is ordered to pay disbursements of $3,500.00 to the tenant.
The previous order as to name suppression remains in force. The tenant’s name is supressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4836200 — Tenancy dispute at 56 Upper Stanley Brook Road, Stanley Brook, RD 2,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4836200 — Tenancy dispute at 56 Upper Stanley Brook Road, Stanley Brook, RD 2,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions