What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5153413 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 5153413?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5153413?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5153413?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11578579-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5153413 about?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed])

How much money was awarded in case 5153413?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5153413?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5153413?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11578579-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5153413 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Emilie Kennedy immediately.
The application pursuant to s.60AA Residential Tenancies Act 1986 is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing.
The tenant seeks release of the bond and says that the landlord has acted to terminate the tenancy without grounds.
The law relating to the issues before the Tribunal is contained in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case the tenant must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
The term “balance of probabilities” means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is more likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
The obligation to show that something is more likely than not is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal. This is significant in this hearing as the parties may find that a claim is not accepted, not because of any doubts about their voracity, but because they have failed to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case to the standard required. In this matter the property manager appearing for the landlord is also at a disadvantage, not having been appointed as the manager until recently.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “like 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 or 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.” (the emphasis is mine).
The landlord says that the application to release the bond in full to the tenant has been lodged with Bond Services and should pay paid out next week. As at the date of this hearing the bond has not been released to the tenant. There are no grounds for it continuing to be held. The Bond Centre is ordered to release the bond in full to the tenant.
The tenant received a 90 day tenancy termination notice from the landlord. The notice was under s.51(2) RTA which allowed a landlord to give a tenant 90 days’ notice, as the premises were to be put on the market within 90 days after the termination date for the purposes of sale.
The notice was dated 16 September 2024 and required the tenancy to end on 17 December 2024.
The tenant moved out of the premises as required.
The tenant saw an advertisement advertising the premises for rent on 2 February 2025.
The landlord’s evidence was that they had intended to sell the premises as at the date of giving the notice. The landlord’s financial circumstances subsequently changed. They found that they were able to borrow further money from the bank without having to sell the property. The landlord provided written evidence from the agent who had been engaged to sell the property. That evidence supported the landlord’s proposition that they had intended to sell.
The reason for giving the notice must be genuinely held at the time the notice was issued. The reason for giving the notice must be a reasonable certainty, not just a possibility.
In Borlase v Davies Nelson TT 95/95, 27 July 1995, the owner gave the tenant notice to terminate the tenancy on the ground that the premises were required for use by his daughter. That reason changed (his daughter no longer required the premises). The Tribunal held that if the reason for giving the notice subsequently ceases to exist, the notice does not have to be withdrawn.
I consider on the evidence placed before the Tribunal that the tenant has not proven that it was more likely than not that the landlord did not intend to sell the premises at the time the notice was given. At the time that the notice was given, I accept that the landlord had every intention to sell the premises.
The application is dismissed.
The landlord has applied for name suppression. I consider that the landlord has been substantially successful in this matter and suppression of the landlord name and details is ordered.

Order

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Emilie Kennedy immediately.
The application pursuant to s.60AA Residential Tenancies Act 1986 is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing.
The tenant seeks release of the bond and says that the landlord has acted to terminate the tenancy without grounds.
The law relating to the issues before the Tribunal is contained in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” That means that in this case the tenant must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not.
The term “balance of probabilities” means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is more likely. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.
The obligation to show that something is more likely than not is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs may be an important part of discharging this burden. Ultimately however, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal. This is significant in this hearing as the parties may find that a claim is not accepted, not because of any doubts about their voracity, but because they have failed to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case to the standard required. In this matter the property manager appearing for the landlord is also at a disadvantage, not having been appointed as the manager until recently.
As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: “like 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 or 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.” (the emphasis is mine).
The landlord says that the application to release the bond in full to the tenant has been lodged with Bond Services and should pay paid out next week. As at the date of this hearing the bond has not been released to the tenant. There are no grounds for it continuing to be held. The Bond Centre is ordered to release the bond in full to the tenant.
The tenant received a 90 day tenancy termination notice from the landlord. The notice was under s.51(2) RTA which allowed a landlord to give a tenant 90 days’ notice, as the premises were to be put on the market within 90 days after the termination date for the purposes of sale.
The notice was dated 16 September 2024 and required the tenancy to end on 17 December 2024.
The tenant moved out of the premises as required.
The tenant saw an advertisement advertising the premises for rent on 2 February 2025.
The landlord’s evidence was that they had intended to sell the premises as at the date of giving the notice. The landlord’s financial circumstances subsequently changed. They found that they were able to borrow further money from the bank without having to sell the property. The landlord provided written evidence from the agent who had been engaged to sell the property. That evidence supported the landlord’s proposition that they had intended to sell.
The reason for giving the notice must be genuinely held at the time the notice was issued. The reason for giving the notice must be a reasonable certainty, not just a possibility.
In Borlase v Davies Nelson TT 95/95, 27 July 1995, the owner gave the tenant notice to terminate the tenancy on the ground that the premises were required for use by his daughter. That reason changed (his daughter no longer required the premises). The Tribunal held that if the reason for giving the notice subsequently ceases to exist, the notice does not have to be withdrawn.
I consider on the evidence placed before the Tribunal that the tenant has not proven that it was more likely than not that the landlord did not intend to sell the premises at the time the notice was given. At the time that the notice was given, I accept that the landlord had every intention to sell the premises.
The application is dismissed.
The landlord has applied for name suppression. I consider that the landlord has been substantially successful in this matter and suppression of the landlord name and details is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5153413 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5153413 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Frequently asked questions