What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5014588 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5014588?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5014588?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5014588?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11436622-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5014588 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5014588?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5014588?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5014588?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11436622-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

13 Butler Street, Te Kuiti, Te Kuiti 3910 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5014588 — Exemplary damages

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. The applicant must prove all elements of the claim on the balance of probabilities, i.e., more probable than not.
In T v M [1984] 2 NZFLR, the Court of Appeal confirmed that, while ‘balance of probabilities’ is a constant standard: It is the principle of good common sense that the more serious the issue the greater should be the care used in assessing it”.
This approach was confirmed by the majority of the Supreme Court in Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, where the Court stated: [102] ... In New Zealand it has been emphasised that no intermediate standard of proof exists, between the criminal and civil standards, for application in certain types of civil case. Balance of probabilities still simply means more probable than not. Allowing the civil standard to be applied flexibly has not meant that the degree of probability required to meet this standard changes in serious cases. Rather, the civil standard is flexibly applied because it accommodates serious allegations through the natural tendency to require stronger evidence before being satisfied to the balance of probabilities standard.

Did the parties have a binding tenancy agreement?

The tenant claimed that he and the landlord had a binding tenancy agreement (contract), and the landlord has breached the agreement, and he is therefore entitled to compensatory and exemplary damages.
Section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the Act applies.
Section 2(1) RTA defines a landlord as the grantor of a tenancy under a tenancy agreement of residential premises. A tenant is the grantee of the tenancy. The terms ’residential premises’, ‘tenancy’, and ‘tenancy agreement’ are defined as: tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent; and includes any tenancy of residential premises implied or created by any enactment; and, where appropriate, also includes a former tenancy. tenancy agreement, in relation to any residential premises, means any express or implied agreement under which any person, for rent, grants or agrees to grant to any other person a tenancy of the premises; and, where appropriate, includes a former tenancy agreement and any variation of a tenancy agreement.

What are the requirements of a binding contract?

A legally binding agreement is any contract that is valid and is therefore enforceable. New Zealand contract law requires that in order to prove that the parties have formed such an agreement, the following elements must be demonstrated: • a clear offer. • unequivocal acceptance. • adequate consideration. • an intention for all parties to enter into legal relations; and • certain terms.
The parties did not sign a written tenancy agreement. [the tenant] correctly points out that tenancy agreements are not void simply because they have not yet been confirmed in writing. See S 13(C) RTA.
However, before finding there was a binding contract, the Tribunal would need to be satisfied that there was agreement or certainty about the fundamental terms of the agreement.
In the context of a tenancy agreement s13A of the RTA sets out the required contents of a tenancy agreement. Those listed requirements, while not all required before finding a binding contract, include agreement about the date the tenancy is to commence, which is also usually the date the obligation to pay rent commences.
In my view the parties did not yet have a binding agreement as they had not agreed the start date of the tenancy, which is a fundamental term of a residential tenancy.
The property manager had advised in an email of 28 August that the property would be ready from 4 October 2024 and [the tenant] could move in from this date. [the tenant] replied by saying that 9 October would be a better more workable date and that he would speak to his wife and keep the landlord informed.
Before that start date was agreed the owner asked the property manager to stop negotiations with [the tenant] as he had found a new tenant (that was a family member, wanted the property long term (whereas [the tenant] had indicated 3 to 12 months) and would pay higher rent).
The property manager said the agreement with [the tenant] was not yet finalised and not yet in writing. She had not even prepared a draft written agreement as the start date had not been agreed.
The owner instructed the property manager that he wished to proceed with renting to the family member tenant.
While I have considerable sympathy for [the tenant] and understand his moral outrage that the owner reneged on what he considered was a watertight agreement negotiated with the property manager, as he says the 5 extra days rent was not a dealbreaker for him. The law is on the landlord’s side, The fundamental terms of the contract had not yet been agreed (the start date was still being negotiated) and therefore the landlord (owner) had the option of not continuing those negotiations.
While I also considered applying s 85 of the Act, which states that the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner most likely to ensure the fair resolution of disputes, that discretion does not extend to ignoring basic principles of contract law.
The requirement that there is agreement and certainty about important contractual terms, and the start date of the tenancy is such a term, is so fundamental that I am unable to find in [the tenant’s] favour.
As the parties had not yet negotiated the terms of the tenancy agreement, they did not have a binding contract. It follows that the Tribunal cannot award the damages [the tenant] requests.
The application is not successful, so I decline to award reimbursement of the filing fee. I grant the requested name suppression to both parties. In the circumstances of this case there is no public interest in publishing either parties names.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. The applicant must prove all elements of the claim on the balance of probabilities, i.e., more probable than not.
In T v M [1984] 2 NZFLR, the Court of Appeal confirmed that, while ‘balance of probabilities’ is a constant standard: It is the principle of good common sense that the more serious the issue the greater should be the care used in assessing it”.
This approach was confirmed by the majority of the Supreme Court in Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, where the Court stated: [102] ... In New Zealand it has been emphasised that no intermediate standard of proof exists, between the criminal and civil standards, for application in certain types of civil case. Balance of probabilities still simply means more probable than not. Allowing the civil standard to be applied flexibly has not meant that the degree of probability required to meet this standard changes in serious cases. Rather, the civil standard is flexibly applied because it accommodates serious allegations through the natural tendency to require stronger evidence before being satisfied to the balance of probabilities standard.

Did the parties have a binding tenancy agreement?

The tenant claimed that he and the landlord had a binding tenancy agreement (contract), and the landlord has breached the agreement, and he is therefore entitled to compensatory and exemplary damages.
Section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the Act applies.
Section 2(1) RTA defines a landlord as the grantor of a tenancy under a tenancy agreement of residential premises. A tenant is the grantee of the tenancy. The terms ’residential premises’, ‘tenancy’, and ‘tenancy agreement’ are defined as: tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent; and includes any tenancy of residential premises implied or created by any enactment; and, where appropriate, also includes a former tenancy. tenancy agreement, in relation to any residential premises, means any express or implied agreement under which any person, for rent, grants or agrees to grant to any other person a tenancy of the premises; and, where appropriate, includes a former tenancy agreement and any variation of a tenancy agreement.

What are the requirements of a binding contract?

A legally binding agreement is any contract that is valid and is therefore enforceable. New Zealand contract law requires that in order to prove that the parties have formed such an agreement, the following elements must be demonstrated: • a clear offer. • unequivocal acceptance. • adequate consideration. • an intention for all parties to enter into legal relations; and • certain terms.
The parties did not sign a written tenancy agreement. [the tenant] correctly points out that tenancy agreements are not void simply because they have not yet been confirmed in writing. See S 13(C) RTA.
However, before finding there was a binding contract, the Tribunal would need to be satisfied that there was agreement or certainty about the fundamental terms of the agreement.
In the context of a tenancy agreement s13A of the RTA sets out the required contents of a tenancy agreement. Those listed requirements, while not all required before finding a binding contract, include agreement about the date the tenancy is to commence, which is also usually the date the obligation to pay rent commences.
In my view the parties did not yet have a binding agreement as they had not agreed the start date of the tenancy, which is a fundamental term of a residential tenancy.
The property manager had advised in an email of 28 August that the property would be ready from 4 October 2024 and [the tenant] could move in from this date. [the tenant] replied by saying that 9 October would be a better more workable date and that he would speak to his wife and keep the landlord informed.
Before that start date was agreed the owner asked the property manager to stop negotiations with [the tenant] as he had found a new tenant (that was a family member, wanted the property long term (whereas [the tenant] had indicated 3 to 12 months) and would pay higher rent).
The property manager said the agreement with [the tenant] was not yet finalised and not yet in writing. She had not even prepared a draft written agreement as the start date had not been agreed.
The owner instructed the property manager that he wished to proceed with renting to the family member tenant.
While I have considerable sympathy for [the tenant] and understand his moral outrage that the owner reneged on what he considered was a watertight agreement negotiated with the property manager, as he says the 5 extra days rent was not a dealbreaker for him. The law is on the landlord’s side, The fundamental terms of the contract had not yet been agreed (the start date was still being negotiated) and therefore the landlord (owner) had the option of not continuing those negotiations.
While I also considered applying s 85 of the Act, which states that the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner most likely to ensure the fair resolution of disputes, that discretion does not extend to ignoring basic principles of contract law.
The requirement that there is agreement and certainty about important contractual terms, and the start date of the tenancy is such a term, is so fundamental that I am unable to find in [the tenant’s] favour.
As the parties had not yet negotiated the terms of the tenancy agreement, they did not have a binding contract. It follows that the Tribunal cannot award the damages [the tenant] requests.
The application is not successful, so I decline to award reimbursement of the filing fee. I grant the requested name suppression to both parties. In the circumstances of this case there is no public interest in publishing either parties names.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5014588 — Exemplary damages at 13 Butler Street, Te Kuiti, Te Kuiti 3910

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5014588 — Exemplary damages at 13 Butler Street, Te Kuiti, Te Kuiti 3910

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the parties have a binding tenancy agreement?

What are the requirements of a binding contract?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the parties have a binding tenancy agreement?

What are the requirements of a binding contract?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions