Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5063123 — Tenancy dispute
Decided 25 Feb 2025 · Published 25 Feb 2025 · Application 5063123
Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Location
New Zealand
Tribunal region
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
- The application to reduce the term of the fixed-term tenancy of Aimee Tina Hall at [Tenancy address suppressed] is dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the video hearing.
- The tenant was represented by Mr Booth.
- The tenant entered into a fixed term tenancy on 6 September 2024.
- The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 11 September 2025.
- The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The Tribunal does not have the power to convert a fixed term tenancy to a periodic tenancy (see Eames v Interactive Property Management Ltd TT 1659/3, 11 December 2003).
- The Tribunal must first consider in any application to reduce a fixed term tenancy whether there has been an “unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances.”
- The tenant says that she has a close (but not familial) relationship with Mr R (I have not included the full name as there is no requirement to identify him as he is not a party to these proceedings). The tenant became a flatmate of Mr R many years ago. In November 2022, Mr R was sentenced to 6 years imprisonment.
- Of recent times, Mr R has become eligible for Parole. It is a requirement of the Parole Board that Mr R have suitable accommodation prior to his release.
- The Parole Board have made it clear that the tenant’s current premises are not a suitable address.
- The tenant wants to reduce or end the fixed term tenancy early so that she can move to a suitable address that would be acceptable to the Parole Board and which would allow the tenant and Mr R to reside together.
- For the following reasons, I do not consider that there have been an unforeseen change to the tenant’s circumstances, nor do I consider any hardship that the tenant may suffer as a result of this decision to be “ severe.” • There has been no change to the tenant’s circumstances. The only change is to the circumstances of Mr R who is not a tenant. • The only hardship, severe or otherwise, that will result from this decision is to Mr R and not the tenant. • The fixed term is to end on 11 September 2025. I am informed that the next Parole Board hearing for Mr R is in June 2025, if suitable accommodation can be found. The period between those dates is not substantial when considering any hardship to the tenant.
- The tenant’s application is dismissed.
- Under Section 95A(1) RTA suppression order must be granted if on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings.
- In the present case, the tenant was not wholly or substantially successful.
- I have considered if I should grant a name suppression order for the tenant having regard to the interests of the parties and public interest under Section 95A(4) RTA.
- I am mindful that open justice is a fundamental principle in our legal system. The issue here I need to consider is whether suppressing the tenant’s name and identifying details outweigh the interest of the open justice reporting principle.
- In my view, the application for name suppression and identifying details ought to be declined for the following reasons: a. It is common for parties appearing before the Tribunal to seek suppression orders. But that is not of itself a sufficient reason to make the order. b. The disputes before me are not unusual or other than the ordinary business of the Tribunal. c. The open justice principle requires the outcome of adjudication to be available to the public; and d. Weighing up the interests of the landlord and the public interest, the public interest outweighs the tenant’s interests.
- Accordingly, no order is made for suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
- The landlord has been wholly successful in this matter and suppression of the landlord’s name and details is ordered.