What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4981188 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 4981188?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4981188?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4981188?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12572273-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4981188 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 4981188?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4981188?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4981188?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12572273-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 12B, 76 Albert Street, Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4981188 — Exemplary damages

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.
The original order dated 5 February 2025 is confirmed and remains in full force and effect.
No order is made for legal costs.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant had legal representation.
The landlord had applied for a rehearing in respect of the Tenancy Tribunal order dated 5 February 2025. Adjudicator King granted the rehearing by order dated 12 May 2025.
The order dated 12 May 2025 records 1 that the basis of the landlord’s application for rehearing was that: 1 Paragraph 6 (a) The Tribunal misconstrued the evidence in finding that the landlord’s breach of its obligations under section 45(1)(c) was intentional; and (b) The landlord did not have sufficient opportunity to assemble and present evidence in relation to that issue.
The order states that, “10.There is a possibility that from the evidence presented at the hearing, I gained an incomplete or inaccurate impression of the extent to which the landlord was aware of the building’s compliance issues.
If that is the case, there is a possibility of a substantial wrong and miscarriage of justice having occurred.”
The order dated 12 May 2025 confirms that the rehearing is limited to the issue of whether the landlord’s breach of its obligations under section 45(1)(c) was intentional.
A prehearing Case Conference was held by telephone on 28 July 2025. A direction was made for further evidence to be filed by both parties within 7 working days of 28 July 2025.
The tenant, through her counsel, submitted that the landlord’s application should be dismissed on the basis that no further evidence was filed.
The landlord referred to two documents, the first being a heavily redacted email dated 14 April 2024. That email was available at the original hearing as it is referred to in the order dated 5 February 2025 2 .
The second document was a previous decision of the Tenancy Tribunal 3 which concerns a different tenant and landlord in respect of another unit at the apartment building where this tenancy was located.
The decision is not relevant in respect of whether this landlord’s breach was intentional. Also, in that case there was no claim for exemplary damages in relation to a breach of section 45(1)(c). I presume that the landlord produced this decision because no award for exemplary damages was awarded but the Tribunal will not make such an award unless it is sought.
I agree with counsel in respect of the landlord’s failure to produce evidence. No new evidence has been produced for this hearing to support the landlord’s claim that the breach was not intentional.
The onus is on the landlord who is claiming that the Tribunal was wrong in its decision of 5 February 2025 in relation to whether the landlord’s breach of section 45(1)(c) was intentional. They must provide sufficient evidence to satisfy the Tribunal, on the balance of probabilities, that their claim should succeed. 2 Paragraph 16, page 3 3 Tenant v Supercity Property Management Ltd [2024] NZTT 4864620
After hearing from the parties, I am not satisfied that the outcome should be different from the original decision. Accordingly, the original order of the Tribunal dated 5 February 2025 is confirmed and remains in full force and effect. Costs
The tenant seeks an award of costs against the landlord on the basis that the tenant was represented by counsel and the proceedings are an abuse of process and should not have been brought.
The tenant was represented by counsel on a pro bono basis. This means that no legal fees have been incurred or are payable by the tenant.
The general principle in the Tenancy Tribunal is that costs may be awarded to compensate a party for actual expenses incurred in bringing or defending a claim. The purpose of a costs award is to indemnify the successful party for real, out-of-pocket expenses, not to penalise the unsuccessful party or to provide a windfall.
Therefore, no order is made for legal costs, as the tenant was represented pro bono, and no legal fees have been incurred.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.
The original order dated 5 February 2025 is confirmed and remains in full force and effect.
No order is made for legal costs.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant had legal representation.
The landlord had applied for a rehearing in respect of the Tenancy Tribunal order dated 5 February 2025. Adjudicator King granted the rehearing by order dated 12 May 2025.
The order dated 12 May 2025 records 1 that the basis of the landlord’s application for rehearing was that: 1 Paragraph 6 (a) The Tribunal misconstrued the evidence in finding that the landlord’s breach of its obligations under section 45(1)(c) was intentional; and (b) The landlord did not have sufficient opportunity to assemble and present evidence in relation to that issue.
The order states that, “10.There is a possibility that from the evidence presented at the hearing, I gained an incomplete or inaccurate impression of the extent to which the landlord was aware of the building’s compliance issues.
If that is the case, there is a possibility of a substantial wrong and miscarriage of justice having occurred.”
The order dated 12 May 2025 confirms that the rehearing is limited to the issue of whether the landlord’s breach of its obligations under section 45(1)(c) was intentional.
A prehearing Case Conference was held by telephone on 28 July 2025. A direction was made for further evidence to be filed by both parties within 7 working days of 28 July 2025.
The tenant, through her counsel, submitted that the landlord’s application should be dismissed on the basis that no further evidence was filed.
The landlord referred to two documents, the first being a heavily redacted email dated 14 April 2024. That email was available at the original hearing as it is referred to in the order dated 5 February 2025 2 .
The second document was a previous decision of the Tenancy Tribunal 3 which concerns a different tenant and landlord in respect of another unit at the apartment building where this tenancy was located.
The decision is not relevant in respect of whether this landlord’s breach was intentional. Also, in that case there was no claim for exemplary damages in relation to a breach of section 45(1)(c). I presume that the landlord produced this decision because no award for exemplary damages was awarded but the Tribunal will not make such an award unless it is sought.
I agree with counsel in respect of the landlord’s failure to produce evidence. No new evidence has been produced for this hearing to support the landlord’s claim that the breach was not intentional.
The onus is on the landlord who is claiming that the Tribunal was wrong in its decision of 5 February 2025 in relation to whether the landlord’s breach of section 45(1)(c) was intentional. They must provide sufficient evidence to satisfy the Tribunal, on the balance of probabilities, that their claim should succeed. 2 Paragraph 16, page 3 3 Tenant v Supercity Property Management Ltd [2024] NZTT 4864620
After hearing from the parties, I am not satisfied that the outcome should be different from the original decision. Accordingly, the original order of the Tribunal dated 5 February 2025 is confirmed and remains in full force and effect. Costs
The tenant seeks an award of costs against the landlord on the basis that the tenant was represented by counsel and the proceedings are an abuse of process and should not have been brought.
The tenant was represented by counsel on a pro bono basis. This means that no legal fees have been incurred or are payable by the tenant.
The general principle in the Tenancy Tribunal is that costs may be awarded to compensate a party for actual expenses incurred in bringing or defending a claim. The purpose of a costs award is to indemnify the successful party for real, out-of-pocket expenses, not to penalise the unsuccessful party or to provide a windfall.
Therefore, no order is made for legal costs, as the tenant was represented pro bono, and no legal fees have been incurred.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4981188 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 12B, 76 Albert Street, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4981188 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 12B, 76 Albert Street, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions