Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5087668 — Exemplary damages at 2212 Ashburton Staveley Road, Ashburton Forks, RD 1,
Decided 31 Oct 2025 · Published 31 Oct 2025 · Application 5087668
- Exemplary damages
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Location
Ashburton
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
J Greene
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $8,527.00
- Total balance for Landlord to pay Tenant
- $8,527.00
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exemplary damages – breach of section 45 RTA landlord responsibilities | $2,500.00 | Exemplary damages – breach of section 45 RTA landlord responsibilities | |
| Part refund of rent – unlawful residential premises | $4,000.00 | Part refund of rent – unlawful residential premises | |
| Compensation for landlord breaches | $2,000.00 | Compensation for landlord breaches | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $27.00 |
Order
- [The tenant/s] landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s] $8,527.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
- The Tribunal declares that the premises were (in part) unlawful residential premises.
- The tenant’s application for compensation for damaged and/or missing chattels is dismissed.
- The landlord’s application for rent arrears is dismissed.
- The landlord’s application for storage costs and for rubbish removal is dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing I held in Ashburton on 24 October 2025. Before that I held two in-person directions conferences with the parties, one on 11 April 2025 and one on 8 August 2025.
- At the directions conference held on 8 August the landlord withdrew his claim for the repayment of a loan to the tenant to purchase a vehicle; that is a civil dispute not a dispute arising from the tenancy.
- The directions conferences dealt mainly with the removal of the tenant’s goods from the property. The tenant confirmed at the hearing that she had removed all her goods except for a skate-boarding ramp and some carpet. That is a matter for the parties to resolve between themselves for reasons I will refer to later. Background
- The parties entered into an agreement referred to as a Property Agreement on 16 April 2004. The landlord owns a rural property and keeps bees. The property has several sheds one of which is set up as a honey processing factory.
- The agreement is a hybrid employment/commercial/residential tenancy agreement. It provided that the tenant was happy to work with the bees for no payment in cash or wages in exchange for a better living situation in the country; better schooling for her sons; the storage of equipment, vehicles, and additional gear; and beekeeping training. It was further agreed that the tenant would be entitled to some bee hives as compensation for time spent working with the bees.
- It was recorded that the tenant would pay rent of $350.00 for the use of the facilities. That was a reduced figure. The rent from the start of the arrangement was $500.00 per week.
- The agreement was retrospective since the tenancy actually started on 4 April 2023 and ended soon after the parties signed the property agreement (on or about 25 July 2024).
- When the relationship between the parties broke down, the tenant filed her application for orders after which the landlord filed his cross application.
- The tenant seeks exemplary damages for alleged breaches by the landlord, compensation arising from those breaches, compensation for missing and/or damaged goods, and a full refund of rent. She also seeks a declaration that the premises were unlawful residential premises.
- The landlord seeks rent arrears, compensation for storing the tenant’s goods, and compensation for disposing of the goods and cleaning up. Issues
- The issues the Tribunal must determine are these: •Were the premises unlawful residential premises? •Should the tenant receive a full refund of rent paid? •Should the tenant receive compensation for damaged or missing goods? •Should the tenant receive compensation and/or exemplary damages for the landlord’s breaches? •Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears? •Can the landlord claim the cost of storing the tenant’s goods and disposing of rubbish? Relevant law
- Section 40 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) sets out a tenant’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to pay rent when due; to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy; to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition; and to quit the premises when the tenancy ends and remove all goods and rubbish.
- Section 45 RTA sets out a landlord’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to provide the premises in a reasonably clean state; to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (having regard to the age and character of the premises); and to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS).
- Section 78A RTA sets out the orders the Tribunal can make relating to unlawful residential premises. Unlawful residential premises means residential premises that are used for occupation for a person as a place of residence but that cannot lawfully be occupied for residential purposes by that person (whether generally or whether for the particular residential purposes for which that person is granted occupation).
- Section 78A(3) provides that the Tribunal cannot order the tenant to pay the landlord rent arrears where the premises are determined to be unlawful residential premises. Section 78A(4) RTA provides that the Tribunal may order a full refund of rent paid by the tenant less any amount the Tribunal considers it fair to deduct. Compensation and exemplary damages
- The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities.
- Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
- In Birch v Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party
- Exemplary damages are different. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine.
- Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA. Those factors are: • The intention of the person; • The effect of the unlawful act; • The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and • The public interest. Discussion
Were the premises unlawful residential premises?
- The premises comprised 2 distinct areas – a sleepout where one of the tenant’s sons slept, and the former honey processing commercial area (consented by the Ministry for Primary Industries and subject to a Risk Management Plan) where the tenant and her 2 other sons slept.
- By his own admission, the commercial area rented to the tenant as residential premises was not consented for that purpose, although the sleepout was. Therefore, the premises (defined in section 2 RTA to mean any part of any premises) were unlawful residential premises.
- The Tribunal therefore declares the premises (in part) to be unlawful residential premises. 1[2020] NZDC 17667
Should the tenant receive a full refund of rent paid?
- The rent records produced in evidence were not completely accurate. However, the parties agreed that the tenant had paid rent of $20,000.00 over the course of the tenancy.
- Until the parties signed the property sharing agreement on 16 April 2024, the rent was $500.00 per week from the start of the tenancy on 4 April 2023. The tenant made double payments in error, paying $1,000.00 per week in total. The landlord’s rent records account for that.
- The tenant then stopped paying rent from the end of December 2023 until the end of the tenancy towards the end of July 2024. She claims she was working for the landlord during that time. If correct, that is an employment dispute that falls under the jurisdiction of the Employment Relations Authority.
- When the Tribunal declares premises to be unlawful residential premises it can order that all rent be refunded (which is what the tenant seeks) or the rent paid less an amount the Tribunal considers fair in the circumstances.
- From the rent paid ($20,000.00) the Tribunal orders the refund of $4,000.00 to reflect the fact that the tenant received some benefits from the tenancy such as the use of the compliant sleepout, and that she did not pay rent for almost 7 months of the tenancy from the end of December 2023 to the end of July 2024 (regardless of whether she was employed by the landlord during that time as she claims).
Should the tenant receive compensation for damaged or missing goods?
- As I will discuss further, the Tribunal finds that the storage of the tenant’s goods and equipment was part of the commercial component of the property agreement the parties entered on 16 April 2024. The sheer volume of the goods and equipment means that they cannot be viewed as goods in relation to the residential tenancy. This was akin to commercial storage. Any claim the tenant wishes to pursue would be a civil claim against the landlord arising not from the tenancy component of the agreement, but from the commercial component.
- For this reason, the return of the remaining goods to the tenant is a civil matter between them. The Tribunal facilitated the return of the goods following both case conferences and the tenant has received most of her goods and equipment.
- The claim for compensation for missing/damaged goods is dismissed. Should the tenant receive compensation and/or exemplary damages for the landlord’s breaches?
- The landlord breached his section 45 RTA responsibilities. The commercial area of the premises rented as residential premises did not comply with the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS) 2 nor with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment so far as they apply to the premises 3 .
- This is a breach for which the Tribunal can award exemplary damages up to $7,200.00 4 .
- The landlord’s response to this issue is that the tenant knew that the premises were not consented for use as residential premises, but she chose to rent them. That is no defence. The onus rests with the landlord to ensure that any premises rented for residential tenancy purposes are compliant with the provisions of the RTA and with all requirements in respect of buildings, health, and safety under any enactment as far as they apply to the premises.
- Exemplary damages are awarded both to punish and to deter. The deterrence factor is important in this case since the landlord seemed to consider himself the victim of the tenant’s actions. It is important that any penalty acts to prevent him renting the commercial premises as residential premises in the future.
- For this breach by the landlord of his section 45 RTA responsibilities I award the tenant exemplary damages of $2,500.00.
- Separately, I award the tenant compensation of $2,000.00 for the consequences of the landlord’s breaches. I have limited compensation in this case to reflect the fact that the property sharing agreement was multi-faceted – a residential tenancy, (possibly) an employment agreement, and a commercial component.
- For the residential component, the tenant suffered a loss of use and enjoyment of the tenancy due to the landlord’s section 45 RTA breaches. She should receive compensation for that.
Has the landlord proved a claim for rent arrears?
- Despite the inadequate rent records produced in evidence the parties agreed that the tenant had paid $20,000.00 in total for rent, although the landlord said it comprised rent and storage costs. 2 section 45(1)(bb RTA 3 section 45(1)(c) RTA 4 Schedule 1A RTA
- At the hearing the landlord withdrew his claim for rent arrears. He said there was no point in pursuing it.
- Because of my finding that the premises (the part that comprised the honey processing area) were unlawful residential premises, section 78A(3) prevents the Tribunal from awarding the landlord any rent arrears, even if he had pursued that claim.
- The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is dismissed. Can the landlord claim the cost of storing the tenant’s goods and disposing of rubbish?
- The Tribunal declines to consider this issue as it arises from the commercial element of the agreement the parties entered - the storage of equipment, vehicles, and additional gear.
- The parties clearly contemplated a commercial element to their agreement. The sheer volume of goods and equipment the tenant moved to the property takes it well beyond the usual goods a tenant would have in relation to the residential tenancy component of the agreement.
- At the first directions conference the tenant said she would need about 3 months to remove her goods and equipment and that there would be ‘several truck and trailer loads’ to remove. At the hearing, the tenant said her goods and equipment would have filled about one half of the Courtroom.
- This commercial arrangement, as part of the agreement the parties entered, is separate from the residential tenancy component, which is the only element that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine. Any claim the landlord wants to make for the storage of the tenant’s goods and equipment and for disposing of any rubbish associated with them is a civil dispute that falls within the jurisdiction of the Disputes Tribunal.
- Even if the issue of compensation for the storage and disposal of the tenant’s goods fell within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, as with rent arrears, section 78A(3) RTA prohibits an award of compensation or damages where the premises are unlawful residential premises.
- I dismiss this claim. Result
- The Tribunal declares that the premises were (in part) unlawful residential premises.
- The landlord will pay the tenant $8,527.00 comprising exemplary damages of $2,500.00, compensation of $2,000.00, a rent refund of $4,000.00, and the filing fee of $27.00.
- The tenant’s application for compensation for damaged and/or missing chattels is dismissed.
- The landlord’s application for rent arrears is dismissed.
- The landlord’s application for storage costs and for rubbish removal is dismissed. Name suppression
- The tenant did not seek name suppression. The landlord sought name suppression but is not entitled to an order because his application and his defence to the tenant’s application are unsuccessful 5 .
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s109, s11, s16, s2, s3, s40, s45, s45(1), s78A, s78A(3), s78A(4), s95A
Key findings
- Dispute theme: exemplary damages
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5087668 about?
The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] tenant/s] $8,527.00 immediately, calculated
How much money was awarded in case 5087668?
Compensation: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant; Part Refund Of Rent – Unlawful Resid…: $4,000.00 awarded to tenant
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5087668?
The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5087668?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12631200-Tribunal_Order.pdf.
For landlords & property managers
Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.
Tenantcheck reports take minutes: a small step before a dispute ends up at tribunal.