What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5094403 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of the tenant and

How much money was awarded in case 5094403?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5094403?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5094403?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11596076-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5094403 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of the tenant and

How much money was awarded in case 5094403?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5094403?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5094403?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11596076-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5094403 — Exemplary damages

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, which was conducted by video.

The tenant sought exemplary damages under section 56E which provides that a landlord must not disclose the whole or part of a notice of withdrawal under section 56B(1), or any of the accompanying qualifying evidence, unless the disclosure is permitted by subsection (2).

A breach of this obligation amounts to an unlawful act for which payment of exemplary damages of up to $3,000 may be ordered.

As applicant, the tenant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

The tenant had withdrawn from the tenancy under section 56B.

There was a subsequent dispute between the landlord and remaining tenants, which led to an application being filed in the Tenancy Tribunal. Following a mediation, one of the remaining tenants contacted the tenant. As a result of this, she was under the impression that the landlord had disclosed information about her withdrawal from the tenancy. In support of this, she produced a text from her former flatmate.

The landlord denied divulging any information at the mediation. She said that it was the tenants who had done so. In support of her stance, she had a copy of their tenancy application.

Because the landlord was present at the mediation, she could give direct evidence of what was said. The tenant was not present at the mediation and so she was relying on hearsay in the form of some texts. The sender of the text was not available to give evidence. The text evidence was equivocal. It includes: They trying to say that you didn’t provide sufficient evidence to be removed from the lease so your (sic) still on it... ... They think you need to provide sufficient evidences to the landlord it was so horrible they were all assuming I like beat you up ...

It is not clear from the text communication who divulged information about the withdrawal from the tenancy. The writer of the text is not known and the context of the text communication is also not known. It is not known who “they” is. Overall, it is not a reliable form of hearsay evidence to support the tenant’s claim.

On the other hand, the landlord has given direct evidence that she did not introduce this information at the mediation.

Therefore, on the tenant did not establish that it is more likely than not that the landlord divulged information in contravention of section 56E of the Act.

In fact, the landlord had further evidence to corroborate her position. She had a copy of the application that had been filed by the remaining tenants. She said that it mentioned the tenant’s withdrawal from the tenancy under the Family Violence provisions and that a copy of the withdrawal was filed along with it. She offered to send it to the Tribunal and the tenant.

Because the landlord had the application number, I was able to look up the application during the hearing and confirm that this was the case.

The tenant has not established that the landlord disclosed the information and accordingly, her claim is dismissed.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of the tenant and landlord.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, which was conducted by video.
The tenant sought exemplary damages under section 56E which provides that a landlord must not disclose the whole or part of a notice of withdrawal under section 56B(1), or any of the accompanying qualifying evidence, unless the disclosure is permitted by subsection (2).
A breach of this obligation amounts to an unlawful act for which payment of exemplary damages of up to $3,000 may be ordered.
As applicant, the tenant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The tenant had withdrawn from the tenancy under section 56B.
There was a subsequent dispute between the landlord and remaining tenants, which led to an application being filed in the Tenancy Tribunal. Following a mediation, one of the remaining tenants contacted the tenant. As a result of this, she was under the impression that the landlord had disclosed information about her withdrawal from the tenancy. In support of this, she produced a text from her former flatmate.
The landlord denied divulging any information at the mediation. She said that it was the tenants who had done so. In support of her stance, she had a copy of their tenancy application.
Because the landlord was present at the mediation, she could give direct evidence of what was said. The tenant was not present at the mediation and so she was relying on hearsay in the form of some texts. The sender of the text was not available to give evidence. The text evidence was equivocal. It includes: They trying to say that you didn’t provide sufficient evidence to be removed from the lease so your (sic) still on it... ... They think you need to provide sufficient evidences to the landlord it was so horrible they were all assuming I like beat you up ...
It is not clear from the text communication who divulged information about the withdrawal from the tenancy. The writer of the text is not known and the context of the text communication is also not known. It is not known who “they” is. Overall, it is not a reliable form of hearsay evidence to support the tenant’s claim.
On the other hand, the landlord has given direct evidence that she did not introduce this information at the mediation.
Therefore, on the tenant did not establish that it is more likely than not that the landlord divulged information in contravention of section 56E of the Act.
In fact, the landlord had further evidence to corroborate her position. She had a copy of the application that had been filed by the remaining tenants. She said that it mentioned the tenant’s withdrawal from the tenancy under the Family Violence provisions and that a copy of the withdrawal was filed along with it. She offered to send it to the Tribunal and the tenant.
Because the landlord had the application number, I was able to look up the application during the hearing and confirm that this was the case.
The tenant has not established that the landlord disclosed the information and accordingly, her claim is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5094403 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5094403 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions