What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5079348 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 5079348?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5079348?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5079348?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12776385-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5079348 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 5079348?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5079348?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5079348?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12776385-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5079348 — Exemplary damages

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 application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

The tenant has applied for a rehearing.
A rehearing consideration hearing was held on 24 November 2025.
The tenant attended the hearing. The Landlord did not attend the hearing by Teams video link. A telephone call was made to the landlord on the number provided at the allocated hearing time. The call went to voicemail. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing has been given. I am satisfied that notice of the hearing was given.
The landlord shown in the tenant’s initial application to the Tribunal is Anjeshni Singh. Anjeshni Singh is also recorded as the landlord in the tenancy agreement entered into by the tenant.
The of this matter took place on 13 March 2025. The landlord did not attend that hearing. An order was subsequently made for the landlord to pay the tenant a total of $4,827.00.
On 13 October 2025, the tenant filed applications for : • A rehearing out of time. • An order for a rehearing. Application out of time
Consideration must first be given to the tenant’s application to have the matter considered out of time.
Section 105(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) requires any application for a rehearing to be filed within five working days of the order. Further time may be allowed by the Tribunal.
Further time may be allowed, for example, where the applicant party needs time to obtain documents or the information required to bring a rehearing application did not present itself until sometime later.
In this case, the tenant says that he did not discover that there was, what he says, was an undisclosed principal in this tenancy arrangement until well after the hearing.
I am not persuaded that this is correct. The record of title on which the tenant bases this claim was available to the tenant at the time of the first hearing. I do not consider this “discovery” to be a ground for a rehearing. There being no grounds to consider an application filed out of time. The application is dismissed.
If I am wrong in that matter, I move onto consider the actual application by the tenant.
Section 105(1) RTA provides that the Tribunal has the power to order a rehearing where “a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur”.
Usually the party applying for the rehearing must show that something went wrong with the Tribunal’s procedure, for example, that they did not receive notice of the hearing or they were not able to properly present their case. The tenant does not submit that there has been a fault with the Tribunal’s process.
A rehearing may also be granted where there is new evidence that was not reasonably available at the first hearing if it could have affected the outcome. In Jemma Trust v Rutherford (DC North Shore, CIV-2009-044-2056, 11 December 1999), the District Court quoted an extract from the Court of Appeal outlining the relevant considerations: The principles upon which further evidence is admitted are designed to balance the interests of the person seeking to adduce such evidence on the one hand with the interests of the opposite party is on the other. They are also designed to reflect the public interest in ensuring, so far as is possible, that parties put up their best case at trial. Any other approach would be very wasteful of public resources. The conventional requirements are that the further evidence must be fresh, it must be credible and it must be cogent. Evidence is not regarded as fresh if it could with reasonable diligence have been produced at the trial....While the absence of freshness is not an absolute disqualification, the criteria for admission in such circumstances must be very strict. In our view, when the evidence is not fresh it should not be admitted unless the circumstances are exceptional and the grounds compelling.
The tenancy agreement in this matter records the landlord’s name as being “Anjeshni Singh.”
The initial application to the Tribunal was filed by the tenant against “Anjeshni Singh”
The Tribunal’s order dated 23 March 2025 is against Anjeshni Singh.
The basis for the tenant’s rehearing application is that in the course of attempting to enforce the Tribunal’s order, the tenant has discovered that “Anjeshni Singh” was the agent for undisclosed principals, those principals being owners of the premises.
The tenant has provided a copy of the record of title to the premises, which shows that the registered owners are “Vishal Chandra” and “Pramod Chandra”. The tenant says that Anjeshni Singh is the wife of one of the owners.
The Tribunal must determine whether the landlord is the owner of the premises, or Anjeshni Singh, or both.
Section 77(1) RTA provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants. Therefore, it cannot make an order either for or against an “agent” unless they are a ‘landlord.’ This was confirmed by the District Court in Harcourts Accommodation Centre Ltd v Barker (DC, Christchurch, M56/93, 16 March 1993), where the Court held that a property manager should not have brought a claim against the tenant after the end of the tenancy.
There are two relevant sources of agency law: the common law rules of agency, and the definition of landlord in s 2(1) RTA. Section 2(1) RTA defines the meaning of agent and landlord as: agent, in relation to any person who is a landlord or a tenant, means an agent of that person in that person’s capacity as landlord or tenant; and includes an employee of that person in that person’s capacity as landlord or tenant landlord, in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, means the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement; and, where appropriate, includes- ... (e) an agent of the landlord" [emphasis added]
The owner of the property will often be the grantor of the tenancy, and therefore the landlord, even where a property manager acts on their behalf. However, this will not always be the case, as the RTA explicitly recognises that the owner and landlord may not be one and the same. For example, ss 5(1)(n) and 51(2)(d) refer the "landlord or owner", and ss 5(1)(s) and s 51(2)(c) deal with circumstances where the landlord is not the owner.
If, under the common law rules of agency, the agent is a ‘landlord’, then they will be a party to the proceedings.

What are the common law rules?

The District Court held in the case of Mumby v Gary Brown Realty Ltd [2011] DCR 420, that “the law is no different for agents acting under the Residential Tenancies Act than agents acting in any other capacity” (at para [31]).
The primary common law rule is that an agent who merely acts as an intermediary for a principal (the owner) is not a party to the contract between the principal and the other party (the tenant). Whether an agent is acting as an intermediary depends on the intention of the parties, which is determined objectively from the words used in the contract and the background facts.
An agent who puts their unqualified name on a contract will usually be personally liable, even if the other party knows they are acting as an agent. Use of the term ‘agent’ will not necessarily displace this presumption, as this is a descriptive term that does not necessarily indicate the capacity in which the agent has signed the contract. In these circumstances, both the agent and the principal can sue or be sued on the contract (Mumby at paras [47] and [50]). On the other hand, use of qualifying words such as ‘as agent for’ on ‘on behalf of’ will usually be taken to mean the agent is acting as an intermediary.
An agent acting for an unnamed principal will not necessarily be a party to the contract; this is just a relevant factor in determining the parties’ intention. Where the existence of a principal is not disclosed, the agent will be a party to the contract. The undisclosed principal, if discovered, will also be liable under the contract.
In Mumby, the agent took over the tenancy from a previous agent. A new tenancy agreement was prepared, which named the agent as landlord and required the tenant to pay rent to the agent. The Court considered several factors in deciding the agent was liable under the tenancy agreement: the agreement named the agent as landlord, a bond lodgement letter from the Bond Centre referred to the agent as landlord, the agent was involved in inspections, the agent dealt with the tenant's inquiries and complaints, and the agent issued a termination notice.

Does the extended definition of landlord include the agent?

If, under the common law rules, the property manager is an agent acting ‘on behalf of’ the landlord, then it is necessary to consider whether the extended definition of landlord in the RTA should apply to them.
Although the District Court in Mumby stated that the law applicable to agents is the same under the RTA as in any other capacity, this comment was made in the context of a finding that the Tenancy Tribunal had applied the common law rules too narrowly. As the Court found that the property manager was a landlord under the common law, it did not need to consider the extended definition of landlord under s 2(1).
Section 10(1) of the Legislation Act 2019 provides that the meaning of legislation must be ascertained from the text and in the light of its purpose and context. The plain and ordinary meaning of ‘landlord,’ as defined by s 2(1) RTA, is that a landlord includes “where appropriate ... (e) an agent of the landlord”. If the Tribunal were to confine the meaning of landlord to the common law agency rules, then it would be ignoring the clear and explicit language of the statutory definition and would render the words in sub-clause (e) meaningless.
The Tribunal routinely hears claims filed by property managers, either in their own name, or ‘as agent’ for the owner. Because most tenancy agreements used by property managers specify that they are acting on behalf of the ‘landlord/owner,’ unless they are also a landlord under the extended definition in s 2(1), they cannot file a claim in their own name: nor can they file an application ‘as agent’ for the landlord. If it is appropriate to treat a property manager as a landlord for the purpose of bringing proceedings, then equally there will be circumstances where it is appropriate to treat the agent as a landlord where a claim is brought by the tenant.
The Tribunal has held that the rules of agency are affected by the extended definition of landlord in the RTA, and that the words "where appropriate" in s 2(1) do not limit the extended definition. In Hayward v Lambton Property Management Limited [2012] NZTT 1694, the Tribunal said there were sound policy reasons why the definition of landlord should be extended to include the agent: many owners use professional property managers; some owners are absentee or live oversees; many tenants, owners and agents do not understand the implications of the common law rules; and a tenant could be left in a difficult situation if forced to pursue an owner whom they did not know and had no dealings with.
Many of the factors listed in Mumby will be relevant in determining whether it is appropriate to treat an agent as a landlord. It will also be relevant to consider the role of the agent in any alleged breach. In Edinburgh Realty Ltd v Gray (DC, Dunedin, TT1080 & 1082/97, 8 April 1998), a sales agent acted as an intermediary between the owner and a prospective tenant. The agent did not prepare or sign the tenancy agreement but did receive the bond and send it to the Bond Centre. Before the tenant took possession, the agent told him the owner would not release the keys as the property had since been sold. The District Court held that the owner was solely responsible for repudiating the contract, and the agent did not become responsible simply by communicating the owner's intention to the tenant. The Court did not consider that it was ‘appropriate’ to find the agent liable for the owner’s breach.
In the context of tenancy law, an undisclosed principal situation might arise if, for example, a property manager (agent) signs a tenancy agreement without revealing that they are acting for the actual owner (principal).
The third party (such as the tenant) believes they are dealing directly with the agent, not knowing there is another party (the principal) behind the scenes.
If it is later revealed that there is an undisclosed principal, the principal can sometimes be held liable for the obligations under the contract, as if they were a disclosed party from the start.
Anjeshni Singh is shown in the tenancy agreement as the landlord. It is clear that she was the grantor of the tenancy (as is required under the definition of landlord in s.2 RTA). No evidence has been provided to suggest that Anjeshni Singh was acting as an agent, nor has any probative evidence been provided to show that she was an agent for an undisclosed principal.
For there to be an undisclosed principal, there must be some evidence on which to base the claim. There is no evidence that Anjeshni Singh was an agent and not the landlord. There is no probative evidence on which the tenant is able to base a claim that not only was Anjeshni Singh an agent, but that she was the agent of an undisclosed principal. The application is dismissed.
The balance of the tenant’s claims seek compensation for costs incurred by the tenant in attempting to enforce the current order, an award of further exemplary damages and interest. They are not grounds on which a rehearing can be granted.
The name suppression granted to the tenant with the original order is continued. .

Tenancy Tribunal case 5079348 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5079348 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What are the common law rules?

Does the extended definition of landlord include the agent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What are the common law rules?

Does the extended definition of landlord include the agent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions