What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5100441 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 5100441?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $7,570.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5100441?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5100441?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12128293-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5100441 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 5100441?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $7,570.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5100441?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5100441?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12128293-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 3F, 51B Princes Street, Onehunga, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5100441 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5100441 — net $7,597.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 4 January 2025 (less failure to mitigate loss	$7,570.00	Rent arrears to 4 January 2025 (less failure to mitigate loss
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,597.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,597.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Taz Mukorombindo must pay [The landlord/s] $7,597.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 16 July 2025.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Katipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ...[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit of not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. RENT ARREARS & MITIGATION OF LOSS The law
Section 40(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) imposes an obligation on a tenant to pay rent as and when it is due and payable under the tenancy agreement.
Where a tenant fails to pay rent, section 49 RTA requires a landlord to take all reasonable steps to limit the loss arising from the tenant’s breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.
In Huang v Ashworth [2024] NZDC 15726, the District Court discussed a landlord’s duty to mitigate their loss in the context of rent arrears and held: [8] ...[W]here the tenant fails to pay rent owing, there is an obligation on the landlord to mitigate the loss. This can be achieved by not allowing the arrears to continue to accrue, instead ending the tenancy and reletting the premises thereby preventing ongoing loss. ... [11] Of relevance is s 55(1)(a) of the Act, which contains the power for a landlord to end a tenancy where rent is more than 21 days in arrears...
The District Court held that the test of what is required by a landlord to mitigate their loss is a factual one that requires the Court or Tribunal to consider: (a) whether the landlord took all reasonable steps to mitigate its loss; and (b) more particularly, whether it acted reasonably having regard to all the circumstances of the case.
The case of Huang v Ashworth involved a tenancy that began in 2019 and ended on 3 January 2023. Throughout a significant period of the tenancy, the tenant did not pay the full amount of rent and was in arrears. As of March 2022, the tenant was 13 weeks in arrears. Rent arrears continued to increase until the tenancy ended on 3 January 2023. The landlord sought an order for $10,000.00 in rent arrears.
The landlord in Huang v Ashworth had engaged in ongoing discussion with the tenant about payment of the arrears. At different times, arrangements were put in place for the tenant to pay the arrears, but the tenant did not adhere for any significant period of time. The tenant made numerous promises to the landlord to pay the arrears and would sometimes “top up” their rental payment to reduce the arrears, but never for a sustained period of time. The landlord continued to allow the tenant more time to pay the arrears, rather than seeking eviction. The District Court found the landlord’s attempts to resolve the issue of rent arrears without resorting to eviction were reasonable, but only up to a point. At paragraph [18], the District Court held: [18]... Where a tenant repeatedly breaches promises to make up arrears and instead additional arrears are incurred there comes a point where it is being naïve or careless to your own interests to persist giving the tenant more time to pay. For that reason, I do not consider that the full arrears can be claimed. In other words I am satisfied on balance of probabilities that there was some failure to mitigate loss...”
The District Court considered a reduction of one third of the total rent arrears claimed to be a reasonable reflection of the landlord’s failure to mitigate their loss. Landlord’s evidence and submissions
The landlord gave evidence that the tenancy began on 27 May 2024 and was for a fixed-term until 4 January 2025. This was despite the fact that the tenancy agreement signed by the parties and submitted to the Tribunal recorded the tenancy as being periodic.
The landlord claims the tenant told them that they needed to return to their home country unexpectedly and vacated the premises on 14 December 2024. The landlord gave evidence that they never agreed to the tenant’s request to end the fixed-term tenancy early verbally and the tenant never put their request in writing. Even if the tenant had made a formal request in writing, the landlord gave evidence they would have declined to end the fixed-term tenancy early.
The landlord seeks rent arrears up to 4 January 2025 and submitted a rent summary, which proves rent arrears up to this date are $9,070.00 (95 days).
The landlord gave evidence that they tried to manage the issue of rent arrears themselves. The landlord claims they contacted the tenant numerous times and organised payment plans, which the tenant never complied with.
The landlord submitted copies of emails sent to the tenant on 11 November 2024, 20 November 2024, 23 November 2024 and 25 November 2024. The email sent on 20 November 2024 was a 14-day notice to remedy regarding rent arrears.
The landlord filed an application for rent arrears on 7 December 2024. Rent arrears were $6,315.00 (66 days) on this date.
The landlord gave evidence that they did not consider filing an application to end the tenancy, because the tenancy was for a fixed term and they wanted the tenancy to continue until the end of the fixed term. Tenant’s evidence and submissions
The tenant gave evidence that the believed the tenancy was for a fixed term up to a date in January 2025, but could not recall exactly when.
The tenant claims they had to return to their home country unexpectedly and this was the reason they vacated the premises.
The tenant claims they should only be liable for rent arrears up to the date they vacated the premises on 14 December 2024, which is $6,980.00. Analysis
Despite the fact that the tenancy agreement signed by both parties appears to be for a periodic tenancy, I proceed on the basis that the tenancy was a fixed-term tenancy from 27 May 2024 – 4 January 2025. Both parties gave evidence that they intended to enter into a fixed-term tenancy at the beginning of the tenancy and acted under this assumption throughout the tenancy.
In this case, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities the landlord has acted reasonably to mitigate their loss.
From the rent summary, it is clear that the tenant entered into a state of arrears on 27 July 2024. From 21 September 2024, the level of rent arrears steadily increased. The tenant ceased paying rent from 17 October 2024 until the end of the tenancy on 4 January 2025.
The landlord filed their application with the Tribunal on 7 December 2024, but only sought an order for rent arrears, not termination. On the date the landlord filed their application, the tenant had not paid rent for 7 weeks and was in rent arrears of $6,315.00 (66 days).
The landlord does not appear to have turned their mind to the fact that they could have mitigated their loss by ending the tenancy early and re-tenanting the premises. The landlord gave evidence during the hearing that this was because the tenancy was for a fixed term and did not expand upon this further.
The duty to mitigate one’s loss in the context of rent arrears applies to both fixed- term and periodic tenancies. A landlord who is a party to a fixed-term tenancy cannot sit on their legal rights and do nothing while rent arrears continue to increase. They are required to act reasonably to mitigate their loss. The only exception is if the tenant abandons the fixed term tenancy. 1
After the hearing, the landlord contacted the Registry providing further evidence on this point. The landlord claims that they had promised the apartment to their son in early January 2025 and therefore, were not in a position to end the tenancy with Mr Mukorombindo and re-tenant the premises for 1 – 2 months before their son arrived. Due to the fact that this evidence was submitted after the hearing, I can only give it very limited weight. In any case, I consider the landlord could have advertised the premises for a periodic tenancy, which is month to month, or considered other short-term rental options for holidaymakers and the like.
The landlord’s efforts to try to deal with the issue of rent arrears themselves was reasonable, but only up to a certain point. The rent summary records rent arrears as being $4,320.00 (45 days) on 15 November 2024 and the tenant had not paid rent for 4 weeks. On the balance of probabilities, I find the landlord’s decision to continue to rely on assurances from the tenant to pay their rent and arrears after this date was naïve and careless to their own interests. In failing to apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that there was a failure by the landlord to mitigate their loss.
I do not consider the failure to be as significant as the landlord in Huang v Ashworth. Therefore, I decline to reduce the overall level of rent arrears by one third and instead reduce it by $1,500.00, which I consider fair and reasonable.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is granted for $7,570.00. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 61(4).

FILING FEE

Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5100441 — net $7,597.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 4 January 2025 (less failure to mitigate loss	$7,570.00	Rent arrears to 4 January 2025 (less failure to mitigate loss
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,597.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,597.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Taz Mukorombindo must pay [The landlord/s] $7,597.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 16 July 2025.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Katipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ...[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit of not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. RENT ARREARS & MITIGATION OF LOSS The law
Section 40(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) imposes an obligation on a tenant to pay rent as and when it is due and payable under the tenancy agreement.
Where a tenant fails to pay rent, section 49 RTA requires a landlord to take all reasonable steps to limit the loss arising from the tenant’s breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.
In Huang v Ashworth [2024] NZDC 15726, the District Court discussed a landlord’s duty to mitigate their loss in the context of rent arrears and held: [8] ...[W]here the tenant fails to pay rent owing, there is an obligation on the landlord to mitigate the loss. This can be achieved by not allowing the arrears to continue to accrue, instead ending the tenancy and reletting the premises thereby preventing ongoing loss. ... [11] Of relevance is s 55(1)(a) of the Act, which contains the power for a landlord to end a tenancy where rent is more than 21 days in arrears...
The District Court held that the test of what is required by a landlord to mitigate their loss is a factual one that requires the Court or Tribunal to consider: (a) whether the landlord took all reasonable steps to mitigate its loss; and (b) more particularly, whether it acted reasonably having regard to all the circumstances of the case.
The case of Huang v Ashworth involved a tenancy that began in 2019 and ended on 3 January 2023. Throughout a significant period of the tenancy, the tenant did not pay the full amount of rent and was in arrears. As of March 2022, the tenant was 13 weeks in arrears. Rent arrears continued to increase until the tenancy ended on 3 January 2023. The landlord sought an order for $10,000.00 in rent arrears.
The landlord in Huang v Ashworth had engaged in ongoing discussion with the tenant about payment of the arrears. At different times, arrangements were put in place for the tenant to pay the arrears, but the tenant did not adhere for any significant period of time. The tenant made numerous promises to the landlord to pay the arrears and would sometimes “top up” their rental payment to reduce the arrears, but never for a sustained period of time. The landlord continued to allow the tenant more time to pay the arrears, rather than seeking eviction. The District Court found the landlord’s attempts to resolve the issue of rent arrears without resorting to eviction were reasonable, but only up to a point. At paragraph [18], the District Court held: [18]... Where a tenant repeatedly breaches promises to make up arrears and instead additional arrears are incurred there comes a point where it is being naïve or careless to your own interests to persist giving the tenant more time to pay. For that reason, I do not consider that the full arrears can be claimed. In other words I am satisfied on balance of probabilities that there was some failure to mitigate loss...”
The District Court considered a reduction of one third of the total rent arrears claimed to be a reasonable reflection of the landlord’s failure to mitigate their loss. Landlord’s evidence and submissions
The landlord gave evidence that the tenancy began on 27 May 2024 and was for a fixed-term until 4 January 2025. This was despite the fact that the tenancy agreement signed by the parties and submitted to the Tribunal recorded the tenancy as being periodic.
The landlord claims the tenant told them that they needed to return to their home country unexpectedly and vacated the premises on 14 December 2024. The landlord gave evidence that they never agreed to the tenant’s request to end the fixed-term tenancy early verbally and the tenant never put their request in writing. Even if the tenant had made a formal request in writing, the landlord gave evidence they would have declined to end the fixed-term tenancy early.
The landlord seeks rent arrears up to 4 January 2025 and submitted a rent summary, which proves rent arrears up to this date are $9,070.00 (95 days).
The landlord gave evidence that they tried to manage the issue of rent arrears themselves. The landlord claims they contacted the tenant numerous times and organised payment plans, which the tenant never complied with.
The landlord submitted copies of emails sent to the tenant on 11 November 2024, 20 November 2024, 23 November 2024 and 25 November 2024. The email sent on 20 November 2024 was a 14-day notice to remedy regarding rent arrears.
The landlord filed an application for rent arrears on 7 December 2024. Rent arrears were $6,315.00 (66 days) on this date.
The landlord gave evidence that they did not consider filing an application to end the tenancy, because the tenancy was for a fixed term and they wanted the tenancy to continue until the end of the fixed term. Tenant’s evidence and submissions
The tenant gave evidence that the believed the tenancy was for a fixed term up to a date in January 2025, but could not recall exactly when.
The tenant claims they had to return to their home country unexpectedly and this was the reason they vacated the premises.
The tenant claims they should only be liable for rent arrears up to the date they vacated the premises on 14 December 2024, which is $6,980.00. Analysis
Despite the fact that the tenancy agreement signed by both parties appears to be for a periodic tenancy, I proceed on the basis that the tenancy was a fixed-term tenancy from 27 May 2024 – 4 January 2025. Both parties gave evidence that they intended to enter into a fixed-term tenancy at the beginning of the tenancy and acted under this assumption throughout the tenancy.
In this case, I am not convinced on the balance of probabilities the landlord has acted reasonably to mitigate their loss.
From the rent summary, it is clear that the tenant entered into a state of arrears on 27 July 2024. From 21 September 2024, the level of rent arrears steadily increased. The tenant ceased paying rent from 17 October 2024 until the end of the tenancy on 4 January 2025.
The landlord filed their application with the Tribunal on 7 December 2024, but only sought an order for rent arrears, not termination. On the date the landlord filed their application, the tenant had not paid rent for 7 weeks and was in rent arrears of $6,315.00 (66 days).
The landlord does not appear to have turned their mind to the fact that they could have mitigated their loss by ending the tenancy early and re-tenanting the premises. The landlord gave evidence during the hearing that this was because the tenancy was for a fixed term and did not expand upon this further.
The duty to mitigate one’s loss in the context of rent arrears applies to both fixed- term and periodic tenancies. A landlord who is a party to a fixed-term tenancy cannot sit on their legal rights and do nothing while rent arrears continue to increase. They are required to act reasonably to mitigate their loss. The only exception is if the tenant abandons the fixed term tenancy. 1
After the hearing, the landlord contacted the Registry providing further evidence on this point. The landlord claims that they had promised the apartment to their son in early January 2025 and therefore, were not in a position to end the tenancy with Mr Mukorombindo and re-tenant the premises for 1 – 2 months before their son arrived. Due to the fact that this evidence was submitted after the hearing, I can only give it very limited weight. In any case, I consider the landlord could have advertised the premises for a periodic tenancy, which is month to month, or considered other short-term rental options for holidaymakers and the like.
The landlord’s efforts to try to deal with the issue of rent arrears themselves was reasonable, but only up to a certain point. The rent summary records rent arrears as being $4,320.00 (45 days) on 15 November 2024 and the tenant had not paid rent for 4 weeks. On the balance of probabilities, I find the landlord’s decision to continue to rely on assurances from the tenant to pay their rent and arrears after this date was naïve and careless to their own interests. In failing to apply to the Tribunal for an order terminating the tenancy, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that there was a failure by the landlord to mitigate their loss.
I do not consider the failure to be as significant as the landlord in Huang v Ashworth. Therefore, I decline to reduce the overall level of rent arrears by one third and instead reduce it by $1,500.00, which I consider fair and reasonable.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is granted for $7,570.00. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 61(4).

FILING FEE

Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5100441 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 3F, 51B Princes Street, Onehunga, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5100441 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 3F, 51B Princes Street, Onehunga, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions