Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5081871 — State of repair
Decided 17 Feb 2025 · Published 17 Feb 2025 · Application 5081871
- State of repair
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and identifying details.
- [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $2,141.29 immediately, as set out in the table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,480.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
Reasons
Background
- The tenancy is periodic and commenced on 01 October 2024. On 23 November 2024, the tenant filed a claim alleging that the landlord had failed to maintain the property, failed to meet the Healthy Homes Standards, and that the property is an unlawful residential premise.
- On 10 December 2024, the landlord filed a counterclaim seeking termination of the tenancy, alleging that the tenant had engaged in anti-social behaviour, failed to remedy 14-day notices (interference with neighbours’ quiet enjoyment), and had used the property for an unlawful purpose (keeping an unregistered dog).
- On 12 December 2024, a telephone hearing was scheduled for 20 December 2024 to consider the landlord’s application for termination for anti-social behaviour only. Both parties attended the hearing. After considering the evidence the Tribunal dismissed the landlord’s claim.
- On 23 December 2024, the remaining claims were scheduled for an in person hearing on 17 January 2025.
- Both parties have appeared.
- At the beginning of the hearing, the parties advised that since the last hearing the tenancy had ended on 12 January 2024. Claims
- The tenants’ claims are that: i. The property is unlawful residential premises, ii. The landlord has failed to meet the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS”) relating to heating, smoke alarms, insulation, and ventilation, iii. The landlord has failed to maintain the roof in a reasonable condition (leaking roof), iv. The landlord has failed maintain the gas connection (used for cooking and water hearing), v. The landlord had interfered with their reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy.
- The tenant seeks a full rent refund of $8,731.50, damages totalling $16,000.00 for loss of bargain (loss of amenity), reimbursement for the cost of an HHS report ($282.39), compensation for the replacement cost of a water damaged coffee table ($264.29), general damages for pain and suffering, and a refund of the bond.
- On 18 November 2024, the tenant issued a 14-day notice which included a request for details regarding the property’s building consent status. On 19 November 2024, the landlord issued a 90 day notice to terminate the tenancy, citing the need for substantial work on the property. Tenant viewed the notice as retaliatory; however, they did not include it as a claim in their initial application. On 07 January 2025, the tenant sought to amend the application to include this claim. Under section 54(1) of the Act, such an application must be made within 28 days of receiving the notice (see Realty House Whakatane v Eschbank [2020] NZDC 1608.
- The 28-day period expired on 31 December 2024. The tenant sought to amend their application and include this claim on 07 January 2025. The application to declare the notice retaliatory was made out of time and is therefore dismissed.
- The landlord’s claims are that: i. The tenant failed to remedy a 14-day breach notice requiring the removal of a dog, ii. The tenant used the property for an unlawful purpose (an unregistered dog), iii. The tenant interfered with their neighbour’s reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy, iv. The tenant threatened and harassed the landlord.
- The landlord initially sought termination as an outcome for all claims. However, after hearing the tenant’s claims, the landlord advised that they no longer wished to proceed with their claims. No evidence was presented, and the claims were dismissed. Tenant’s claims
- The onus of proving these claims rests with the tenant. The standard required is on the balance of probabilities. The tenant must establish more likely than not that the landlord has breached the terms of the agreement or provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”). Unlawful residential premises
- Under section 78A (2) of the Act residential premises are unlawful if they cannot be lawfully occupied for residential purposes, and the landlord has caused or contributed to the unlawful occupation by failing to comply with sections 36 and 45(1)(c) RTA.
- Under section 36 of the Act the landlord must “take all reasonable steps to ensure that, at the commencement of the tenancy, there is no legal impediment to the occupation of the premises for residential purposes”.
- Under section 45 of the Act, a landlord must “provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair” and comply with any relevant enactment in relation to buildings, health, and safety.
- There is no dispute that the property was offered for residential purposes and the parties entered in a residential tenancy agreement.
- The property is a converted “Totalspan” farm building, consisting of three bedrooms, an open plan kitchen/ dining / lounge area, a bathroom with shower and toilet, and a laundry.
- The tenant has produced a letter from the local council, dated 10 January 2025, which has been sent to the landlord. The letter states that while the property is not classified as “dangerous or insanitary,” it had been consented as a farm building, and not as a dwelling.
- The status of the property is not disputed by the landlord. The landlord states that they discussed this issue with the tenant at the commencement of the tenancy and then included in the HHS compliance statement an acknowledgement that the property was not compliant at the material time. The landlord also stated their intention to work toward obtaining a certificate of acceptance during the tenancy.
- The tenant cannot recall discussing the matter or agreeing to this. The tenant states they first became aware that the property may not be compliant when the contractor they had engaged to provide an HHS report, informed them that one could not be completed without confirmation of the property’s building consent status. The tenant then contacted the council.
- Regardless, under section 11 (3) of the Act, any purported waiver by a tenant of any right or power conferred upon tenants by this Act shall be of no effect. In other words, the tenant cannot knowingly enter into an agreement for unlawful residential premises.
- In this case, both limbs of section 78A are satisfied, as are both sections 36 and 45(1)(c). I find that the property constitutes unlawful residential premises.
- If the Tribunal determines that the property is an unlawful residential premise, then under section 78A 4(a), it may order a full rent refund, or considering any special circumstances a lesser amount.
- The tenant is seeking a full rent refund.
- I will deal with the other claims before returning to the quantum of any rent refund. Failure to maintain and Healthy Homes Standards.
- Under section 45(1)(b) of the Act, the landlord must provide and maintain the property in a reasonable state of repair, having regard to the age and character of the premises.
- The landlord has an obligation to investigate and repair any defect brought to their attention within a period which is reasonable in the circumstances.
- In Collins and Bertoni v Professionals Hutt City Limited, DC Wellington CIV 2009 085-001431, 24 February 2010 the Court stated: “I consider that the obligation of the landlord, under section 45, is to investigate and repair the defect brought to its attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, I think, depends not only on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective evidence of the attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be”.
- Section 45(1) (bb) of the Act requires the landlord to comply with the HHS, which set out the minimum requirements for heating, insulation, ventilation, drainage, and draught stopping for residential rental properties.
- For this tenancy, the HHS for heating, ventilation, drainage, and draft stopping apply 120 days from the commencement of the tenancy, which is 29 January 2025.
- Requirements relating to smoke alarms and insulation have been in effect since 01 July 2019 (see Smoke Alarm and Insulation Regulations 2016).
- Section 45(1)(c) of the Act, requires the landlord to comply with any applicable building, health, and safety regulations. In the case of residential tenancies these are contained in the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (“HIR”), which set out minimum standards for residential properties. The HIR have not been replaced, remain in effect, and apply alongside the HHS.
- Regulation 18 of the HIR states that every house shall be kept in a state of good repair. This requirement aligns with the landlord’s general obligation under section 45(1)(b) of the Act.
- Regulation 15 of the HIR provides that every house shall be free from dampness. Heating
- The tenant’s claim is that the heat pump at the property does not have sufficient capacity. However, the tenancy ended before the HHS applied.
- Regulation 6 of the HIR states: “Every living room shall be fitted with a fireplace and chimney or other approved form of heating”.
- There is no evidence that the heat pump is not an approved form of heating, and the HIR do not specify the required capacity. The claim is dismissed. Smoke alarms.
- The tenant claims that the placement of the smoke alarms does not comply with the Residential Tenancies (Smoke Alarms and Insulation) Regulations 2016 (“Smoke Alarm Regulations”).
- Two smoke alarms are installed in the living area within three metres of the bedroom doors. These alarms are complied with the Smoke Alarm Regulations.
- The property has a mezzanine floor above one of the bedrooms, with a ceiling that is open to the apex of the roof. The tenant states that when they viewed the property, the mezzanine floor had carpet and couches and the landlord’s children were playing there. The tenant argues that it is a habitable space, and as it constitutes a second story, it must have a smoke alarm.
- Photographs showing the mezzanine have been produced. These also show the location of the smoke alarms.
- The landlord states that the mezzanine is a storage area, and not a habitable living space, as the roof height is too low for an adult to stand comfortably.
- The tenant has produced NZ Smoke Alarm standards, which state that best practice in properties with high ceilings is that smoke alarms should be installed within between 200mm and 500mm of the roof apex. However, these standards are not incorporated into the Smoke Alarm Regulations and are therefore subordinate.
- Section 5 (8) of the Smoke Alarm Regulations state There must be at least 1 qualifying smoke alarm installed on the storey or level in the habitable space or in at least 1 of the habitable spaces (as the case may be).
- The Smoke Alarm Regulations define habitable space as “an interior space of a building that is a space for activities normally associated with domestic living.”
- Based on the evidence, I am not satisfied that the mezzanine floor is a habitable space rather than a storage space. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that a mezzanine floor constitutes a second story. The NZ standards for smoke alarms are secondary to the Smoke Alarm Regulations, they do not apply in this case.
- Accordingly, the claim that the property does not comply with the Smoke Alarm Regulations is dismissed. Insulation
- The claim concerning the insulation is that there are gaps in the insulation above the bedroom used by the tenant. The tenant has produced photographs of the ceiling in the bedroom and bathroom showing light coming through from above. The tenant states that this would not occur if the insulation was properly installed. The tenant has also produced photographs taken from above showing gaps between the insulation sheets. The landlord accepts that there are gaps but believes that the insulation is otherwise compliant meeting the required thickness.
- Section 12(1)(c) of the Insulation Regulations 2016 (“Insulation Regulations”) states qualifying insulation must be in a reasonable condition or better.
- I am satisfied that the insulation above the bedroom is not in a reasonable condition and on that basis does not comply with the Insulation Regulations.
- The loss in this case appears to be minimal, and I award the tenant nominal damages of $100.00. Ventilation
- The tenant claims that contrary to the requirements of the HHS the rangehood in the kitchen and extractor fan in the bathroom do not vent externally.
- The landlord denies this, stating that both fans vent externally.
- Until the HSS take effect for this tenancy, the property must meet minimum standards for ventilation as set out in Regulation 11 of the HIR. These state that every habitable room must have a window with an openable area of not less than one twentieth the size of the room’s floor area.
- Regulation 9 of the HIR also states that every bathroom shall have at least one window opening to the outside unless other adequate means of ventilation are provided to the satisfaction of the local authority, which in this case would be the local Council.
- There are opening windows in the kitchen and bathroom. Under the HIR, fans whether vented or unvented are not required. Accordingly, the claim is dismissed. Roof
- The property has a tin roof. The tenant states that on 12 October 2024, they noticed a leak in the ceiling above their bed. This was reported to the landlord. On 20 October 2024, the landlord visited and sprayed an anti-leak substance on the roof above the leak. However, on 27 October 2024, the leak reappeared. On the same date, the landlord attended and placed a tarpaulin over the area.
- On 07 December 2024, tradespeople attended and worked on the roof, but on 09 December 2024, the roof leaked again. The tenant states that this time the leaking was worse, affecting both the bedroom and the main living area, causing damage to their laptop and a recently purchased coffee table.
- On 09 December 2024, the tenant issued a 14 day notice to repair the roof. On 11 December 2024, the landlord messaged the tenant that a roofer would be attending on 12 December 2024. However, the tenant states that to their knowledge, no one arrived until 18 December 2024. On that date they state a roofer inspected the roof but did not carry out any work.
- The tenant claims the matter remained unresolved until the end of the tenancy.
- The tenant produced photographs showing evidence of water damage, including. i. Significant staining on the bedroom ceiling panels suggesting that the roof above the ceiling in the bedroom has leaked previously, ii. Water on a couch and coffee table in the main living room, iii. Water dripping from support beams, iv. Damp spots on walls and floors, v. Water sitting in buckets.
- The coffee table shows signs of swelling on its base and legs. The tenant states the coffee table was new at the commencement of the tenancy.
- The landlord acknowledges that the roof had leaked previously and had been repaired. They accept that the roof leaked, but state that they had made reasonable efforts to remedy the issue. They state that a roofer who visited on 12 December 2024 had inspected the roof but could not find any obvious points of leakage, although the roofer did not go inside.
- The landlord questions the authenticity of the photographs suggesting that they appeared staged, as there are no photographs of water actively dripping from the roof. The landlord also states that the puddling patterns are inconsistent with water falling from a height.
- The landlord questioned why the tenant was claiming compensation for the coffee table but not the laptop which was also shown to have water on it. The tenant stated that they had insurance and had made a claim for the laptop, but the coffee table was worth less than the excess.
- The tenant is claiming $264.29 ($174.30 for the table and $89.99 for delivery) to replace the coffee table like for like.
- Based on the evidence, I am satisfied that the roof leaked. While there is insufficient evidence to determine the exact extent or frequency of the leaking from October 2024 to the end of the tenancy in January 2025, I am satisfied that a leak has more likely than not been the cause of damage to the tenant’s coffee table.
- Despite attempts to remedy the matter it remained unresolved until the end of the tenancy. I take this into account when considering compensation for loss of amenity; the tenant did not receive what they bargained for, which in this case was a waterproof house.
- I award the cost of replacing the coffee table and an additional $250.00 compensation for loss of amenity from October 2024 to January 2025. Gas
- The property uses gas for cooking and water heating. On 19 November 2024, the tenant states they noticed a strong smell of gas. The tenant informed the landlord, who arrived at the property a short time later.
- The landlord advised the tenant that two gas bottles should always be fitted. However, at the time only one was fitted, while the other was detached awaiting refill. The tenant states that this requirement had not been mentioned previously.
- The landlord turned the gas off, and a plumber attended the following day to reconfigure the system. The tenant states that they were without hot water and gas for cooking overnight. Although inconvenienced, the tenant does not seek any compensation. In any event, I am not satisfied that there has been a breach. Interference with reasonable peace comfort and privacy
- There are three claims under this heading. Firstly, that the tarpaulin installed on the roof continuously flapped in the wind, causing a nuisance. The tenant states they raised the matter on 28 October 2024. The landlord attended and re attached the tarpaulin. The tenant states it stopped flapping but then started again. The tenant did not advise the landlord. The tenant states the tarpaulin continued to flap until it was removed in December 2024.
- The second claim concerns a beehive belonging to the landlord, located near a boundary fence about 15 metres from the tenant’s front door. The tenant states their children were stung while playing outside.
- On 23 November 2024, the tenant messaged the landlord, expressing concern about the hives proximity to the house. On 24 November 2024, the landlord relocated the hives.
- On 28 November 2024, the tenant observed bees swarming on a fence post near the hives original location. A photograph has been produced. The tenant issued the landlord with a 14 day notice to remove the bees. The tenant states that the notice was not remedied, and on 14 December 2024, they arranged for a beekeeper, who captured and relocated the bees at no cost. The tenant states the beekeeper also sprayed something on the fence to discourage the bees from returning.
- The landlord states they are hobby beekeepers. Upon receiving the 14-day notice on 29 November 2024, they visited the property, collected the bees on the fence and disposed of them, by killing them. Since they had not entered the tenant’s property, they did not inform the tenant. They were surprised that the bees had returned, as there was no queen bee present, worker bees should not have returned. However, there may have been a residual scent left on the fence.
- The landlord states that they moved the hive further from the tenant’s property. The tenant states that the children continued to be stung and became reluctant to play outside. The landlord questions this, stating their own children played a similar distance from the hives without issue. They also state they frequently heard the tenant’s children playing outside.
- The third concerns the conduct of the landlord in issuing the five notices for anti- social behaviour between 07 December 2024 and 12 December 2024.
- The only notice that arguably described anti-social behaviour, without relying on other evidence, was the second notice in which the tenant referred to the male landlord as “fat.” The other notices, without reference to additional evidence, failed to describe behaviour that met the definition of anti-social behaviour, and the landlord’s claim was dismissed. Law
- Under section 38(2) of the Act, a landlord must not cause or permit and interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises.
- In the case of Smith v Floris, Auckland TT 1404/93, 9 March 1994 at 6, the Tribunal stated: Quiet enjoyment means effectively the right not to have the quality of the tenancy significantly impaired by actions of the landlord and/or the landlord’s agents. Balanced against that, however, one must bear in mind that landlord/tenant relationships tend to be between individuals and that will inevitably involve some interaction between them on a personal level. It is important not to allow a simple clash of personality to become the sole basis for a claim for a breach of this type.
- Whether interference has occurred will depend on the proven facts and an objective assessment of whether the act in question exceeds what a tenant could reasonably be expected to endure under the circumstances. Decision
- The tarpaulin was not raised as an ongoing issue.
- Although they should have advised the tenant of their actions on 29 November 2024, I find the landlord responded appropriately to the 14-day notice issued regarding the bees. Based on the evidence, I am not satisfied that either of these matters amount to an interference significantly impairing the quality of the tenancy.
- Regarding the notices amounting to an interference, the question is whether the issuing of the notices and filing of an application was conduct that interfered with the reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy of the tenant.
- The landlord was entitled to issue the notices for anti-social behaviour, which were challenged and tested before the Tribunal.
- The tenant filed their claim on 23 November 2024. As in the case of Smith v Floris, this appears to be a situation where a clash of personalities contributed to the deterioration of the landlord/tenant relationship. Objectively assessed, I am not satisfied that the notices further impacted on the “quality” of the tenancy. Rent refund. Law
- Having established that the property are unlawful residential premises, section 78A (4) of the Act applies.
- Section 78A (4) states The Tribunal may order the landlord to pay the tenant – (i) The whole of the sum found to have been paid by way of rent for the period for which the Tribunal is satisfied that the premises are or were unlawful premises; or (ii) An amount that is the sum referred to in subparagraph (i) less any amount that the Tribunal is satisfied, having regard to the special circumstances of the matter, including the nature of the premises, it is fair to deduct.
- In the case of Harding v Caroto [ 2023] NZDC 5981, the Court considered the factors that may be taken into account when determining special circumstances under section 78A(4)(ii), not to order a full rent refund, and how any rent refund should be calculated, stating at paragraph at [45] In my view, the fixing of a percentage of what constitutes special circumstances for the rental rate will not always be appropriate. To do so runs the risk of a skewed result where a landlord receives a punitive monetary penalty greater than another tenancy (but has a similar technical breach) just because the rental period is longer than that other tenancy. The focus needs to be on the nature of the breach measured against the benefit of the utility, considered against all the relevant circumstances which will include the length of the tenancy period.
- In the case of Tenant v Landlord [ 2022] NZTT 4209883, 4320590, the Tribunal stated that unlawful residential premises fell broadly into one or more of three categories: a) Premises where no building consent or resource consent has been obtained at all. b) Premises that have been issued an abatement notice or a dangerous and insanitary building notice by the Council. c) Garages, basement conversions, or sections of a premises that have been incorporated into a larger household unit and subsequently converted into a separate household unit without Council consent for the change of use. While the premises may have had the necessary building consents, there was no Council approval for their use as a separate household unit.
- In the case of Tenant v Presland and Co [ 2021] NZTT 4290197, at the Tribunal referred to factors that had been considered in other cases stating at [120] Other Tribunal decisions have weighed the following factors, a. The landlord’s motivation for renting the property, and their conduct during the tenancy. b. The tenant’s motivation for renting the property and bringing the claim, and the length of time he lived in the property. c. The benefits the landlord received in renting the property. d. The benefits the tenant received in renting the property. e. The seriousness of the regulatory breaches making the premises unlawful. f. Any other breaches by the landlord. g. Any detriment or loss the tenant suffered. h. The purpose of s 78A in ensuring landlords do not unfairly profit from unlawful premises. i. The public interest in discouraging unlawful tenancies. j. Any other compensation or exemplary damages that are ordered. Decision
- The tenancy appears to have started on reasonably good terms but quickly deteriorated following issues with the Wi-Fi, after which both parties appear to have developed a mutual dislike for the other.
- The property is in a rural setting, and included stables, two small sheds, and two paddocks in which the tenant kept miniature horses, a pony, and a calf.
- From the commencement of the tenancy to 08 November 2024, the rent was $630.00. From 15 November 2024 to the end of the tenancy, acknowledging defects with the property the rent was reduced to $530.00 per week. The total rent paid was $8,731.50. There was no dispute raised with this figure.
- I have found two breaches proven concerning the leaking roof and the insulation and have awarded compensation for loss of amenity, and the replacement cost of a damaged coffee table. I therefore set those matters aside.
- In this case the property has consent to be used for a farm shed, not a residential dwelling. However, it has not been deemed dangerous or insanitary.
- The landlord had actual knowledge of the property’s status at the commencement of the tenancy. Had they exercised due diligence they would have discovered that they could not enter into an agreement and then take steps to obtain consent retrospectively. Although obtaining consent during the tenancy would have mitigated the breach.
- This cannot be considered a technical breach, but neither is it among the most serious types, such as no consent at all and being unsafe and unsanitary.
- Considering the special circumstances in this case, I award the tenant a rent refund of $1,500.00. I make no order for reimbursement of the HHS report.
- The landlord has stated that the property will not be offered for rent until all of the necessary consents are obtained. This is a prudent course of action. General damages for pain and suffering
- The tenant is seeking damages of $5,000.00 for pain and suffering, stating: “Compensation for pain and suffering, time fuel and kilometres, looking for a new house and grazing, time and stress dealing with courts and council, stress dealing with the lies and accusations, the death of my dogs “.
- Under section 77(2)(n) of the Act , the Tribunal has jurisdiction to award damages: (n) to order the landlord or the tenant under any tenancy agreement to which this Act applies to pay to the other party such sum by way of damages or compensation as the Tribunal shall assess in respect of the breach of any express or implied provision of the tenancy agreement or any provision of this Act.
- In McKay v Moore (No 1) DC Napier MA1205/90, 24 October 1990, the Court stated when applying its jurisdiction under section 77(2)(n), the Tribunal should consider: “(a) So far as money can do it, the injured party shall be put in the same position as he would have been in but for the breach of the tenancy agreement. (b) Liability exists for reasonably foreseeable losses flowing from the breach. (c) Damage may be foreseeable, either: (1) Because the damage is such as may fairly and reasonably be regarded as arising naturally, that is the usual course of things from the breach, or, (2) Because of special knowledge ... at the time of making the contract. For the purpose of (2), actual knowledge needs to be proved.”
- In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing [2020] NZDC 17667 the Court confirmed that the Tribunal has discretion to award general damages for pain or suffering or emotional distress under section 77(2)(n) of the Act, stating: [34] Section 77(2)(n) RTA provides that the Tribunal may make an order for general damages where a landlord or tenant has breached the provisions of the RTA 1986. This is a discretionary power and requires the Tribunal to assess the breach. [35] General damages are damages for “pain or suffering” or “emotional distress”.
- Having determined that the Tribunal had a discretion to award general damages, the Court in Birch v Otautahi, when addressing the quantum (amount) of damages, stated at paragraph [36]: “...... when assessing the quantum of general damages, the Tribunal must take into account the following factors, a) the nature of the breach, b) the duration of the breach, and c), the effect of the breach on the party.”
- The case of Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341 established a common law rule that the one who breaches the contract is only liable for loss of a kind which arises naturally from the breach or was a loss reasonably contemplated by the parties at the time of entering the contract. Decision
- The Tribunal’s jurisdiction to award damages is contained in section 77(2)(n) of the Act. As stated in McKay v Moore (No 1) the Tribunal should ensure that, as far as money can do so, the injured party put in the same position as they would have been in but for the breach of the tenancy agreement.
- Birch v Otautahi Community Housing emphasised that the Tribunal has the discretion, under section 77(2)(n), to award general damages to tenant or landlord.
- McKay v Moore (No 1) and Hadley v Baxendale require damages to be reasonably foreseeable, either a loss arising naturally from the breach or within the reasonable contemplation of the parties at the commencement of the tenancy.
- The questions are: -What was the nature of the term or provision breached. -Does the claim for distress and suffering arise naturally from the breach, -If not, was this a loss contemplated by the parties at the commencement of the tenancy.
- The breaches in this case involve failure to maintain the roof, the insulation above one of the bedrooms, and unlawful residential premises.
- In my view, general damages for pain and suffering beyond the compensation awarded for actual loss, a loss of amenity, and a partial rent refund, are not necessarily foreseeable as a natural consequence of these breaches or within the parties’ contemplation at the commencement of the tenancy.
- There was no evidence that the landlord was responsible for the death of the tenant’s dogs.
- The claim for general damages is declined. Costs
- Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression.
- Both parties seek name suppression.
- Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
- Assessed globally, I am of the opinion that both parties have been sufficiently successful in these proceedings. Accordingly, both are granted name suppression.