What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5158997 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 5158997?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5158997?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5158997?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12429971-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5158997 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 5158997?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5158997?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5158997?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12429971-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

179 Albany Heights Road, Dairy Flat, RD 2, Dairy Flat 0792 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5158997 — Leaks

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
By consent, within 30 days of the date of this Order, the landlord must at his cost have a licensed building practitioner assess the decking, stairs and handrails at the premises and undertake any repair work necessary to ensure compliance with the building code and address any health and safety issues found.
Within 30 days of the date of this Order, the landlord must, at his cost: a. have a registered electrician assess the electrical reticulation at the premises and undertake any repair work necessary to ensure compliance with the building code and address any health and safety issues found. The tenant must comply with any recommendations of that electrician in relation to electrical cords or wiring installed by the tenant. b. have a suitably experienced, registered plumber: i. repair any leaks in the fresh water tank(s); ii. assess whether the system for collecting and storing water is adequate for a property of this accommodation capacity; and iii. undertake any repairs/ improvements recommended by that plumber.
The rent payable for the tenancy will continue to abate by $150.00 per week from the date of this Order until the cause of the leaks and moisture ingress into the bedroom on the East side of the house is remedied.
The rent will abate by $25.00 per week from the date of this order to compensate for the deficiencies in the pool at the premises.
If the landlord fails to comply with Order 2 or 3 above, then the tenant may undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of this work up to $12,500.00. These costs may be set off against rent payable.
Reforma P.M. Limited As Agent For Li Bo Chen and Li Bo Chen must pay [The tenant/s] $48,019.86 immediately as below.

Reasons

The property manager Ms Dong appeared for the landlord. The Owner, Mr Chen who appeared by phone at the last hearing, was represented by counsel. [The tenant/s] represented herself. Barfoot and Thompson did not attend.
During the hearing there was some discussion about who the parties to the Order should be. There have been three property managers over the course of the tenancy. The agreement names the landlord as the Owner, Mr Chen. Each of the property managers was acting in their capacity as agent for Mr Chen, from whom they took instruction. The parties agree that Mr Chen is the landlord for the purposes of this Order.
The Tribunal made an Order on 4 June 2025 (“June Order”) dealing with the preliminary issue of whether the downstairs unit at the premises is part of the tenancy. The June Order determined that it is, but only as a living/ sleeping space.
The June Order also recorded the landlord’s consent to ensure the premises complied with Healthy Homes standards by 1 July 2025.
The landlord was directed to provide by 4 July 2025:
a Healthy Homes compliance report for the premises;
an update on the work required by the Tribunal’s work orders.
The landlord failed to comply. Some evidence about those issues was brought to the hearing.
The tenant has provided an update on progress with the work Orders.
The tenant has also filed a further application (5389296) seeking orders in respect of leaks and a recent e-coli contamination in the water tank. That application is also determined by this Order. Introduction
This is a 10 year tenancy, having begun on 12 June 2015.
Under the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Compliance) Regulations 2019 (“HH Regulations”), it was required to meet Healthy Homes compliance standards by 1 July 2025 (1 July 2019 for insulation requirements).
The tenant says that the premises were not made HH compliant when required.
She says that there have been a series of breaches of the landlord’s other obligations, starting with a failure to provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness, 1 and then an ongoing failure to keep the premises in a reasonable state of maintenance and repair. 2
In her application the tenant alleges repair and maintenance failures that have led to an inadequate rainwater collection system, leaks and flooding into the premises, sewerage overflows, e-coli contamination of the water supply, exposure to dangerous electrical wiring, a leaking swimming pool, leaking water tank and dangerous decking, stairs and handrails.
These led to multiple maintenance requests from the tenant, thirty two in the period from June 2020 to 2024, while the current property manager has been managing the tenancy.
As well as seeking compensation and exemplary damages for those claimed breaches, the tenant asks that work orders be made requiring the landlord to undertake necessary repairs. 1 S.45(1)(a) RTA 2 S.45(1)(b) RTA
By the time of the first Tribunal hearing the current property manager had begun that process and in its Order dated 4 June 2025, the Tribunal noted: “Significant progress is being made on repair/ maintenance work at the premises, as sought by the tenant. The parties agree that it would be sensible to defer the hearing until after 1 July 2025 by which time HH compliance should be confirmed and work order issues will have been progressed”
In that Order, the issues noted for determination at the hearing were noted as follows: “Tenant’s claims for determination at hearing
Work orders for: a. A cracked window in the bedroom to be repaired. b. The ongoing leaks from the pool that need to be investigated and repaired. c. The roof leaks that need to be investigated and repaired. d. If the downstairs area is included in the tenancy, repairs to stop it flooding and to deal with the lights and power points that short or don’t work. e. Repairs to the rotten deck boards and loose handrails. f. Reinforcing to the rotten stairs. g. Repairs to the internal wiring (this has already commenced). h. Repairs to stop the leak in the bathroom.
Compensation and/or exemplary damages as follows: a. An alleged failure to maintain the property and ensure its compliance with all relevant enactments, specifically with respect to: i. the issues noted above for work orders; and ii. the lack of usable extractor fans in all three bathrooms; and iii. the insufficient insulation; and iv. the gutters/water collection that was fixed in May 2023; and v. the falling in of the bedroom ceiling that was fixed in October 2023; and vi. the hole in the bathroom floor that was repaired in October 2023; and vii. the hole in the lounge floor that was repaired in October 2023; and viii. the septic system issues that were repaired in October 2023; and ix. a failure to ensure the home is free from damp. b. Reimbursement for the tenant’s time / payment of the invoice for work to clean up and remediate after the sewage leak in the downstairs flat, $1,027.50. c. Reimbursement for the tenant’s time / payment of the invoice for work to unblock the drains, $240.01. d. Compensation for stress and inconvenience related to dealing with the lack of maintenance over the tenancy or a rent rebate.
A few days before the hearing, the tenant was reimbursed for her payment of the invoices noted in issues 2b. and c. above.

Were the premises made Healthy Homes compliant when required?

A Healthy Homes assessment by [Assessor] dated 10 December 2024 assessed the premises as failing to comply with Healthy Homes standards for: a. Heating (could not assess heating capacity for the woodburner); b. Insulation (ceiling and underfloor – insulation displaced); c. Ventilation (bathroom extractor required); d. Moisture ingress (ground moisture barrier required); e. Draught stopping (gaps and holes).
The landlord said the premises would be made compliant by 1 July 2025. I directed that the landlord provide a compliance report by 4 July 2025.
The property manager has not done so and has instead brought to the hearing evidence that it says proves that the necessary work has been done to achieve compliance, together with the property manager’s own unsigned compliance statement. It says it could not obtain a compliance report because the downstairs area is not, of itself, compliant.
With respect, I struggle to understand why the landlord could not have had [Assessor] reinspect and provide an assessment of current compliance. That is clearly what was directed.
The evidence provided shows that insulation, extractors and a ground moisture barrier have been installed. Some maintenance work was done which the property manager says blocked all holes and gaps. The property manager says the wood burner has now been assessed as of sufficient heating capacity. Corroborating evidence has not been provided to prove either of those claims.
The ongoing problems with water entering the premises and the available evidence as to the cause, suggest that the premises do not comply with the water ingress standard which requires that premises, “...must have a drainage system that efficiently drains storm water, surface water, and ground water to an appropriate outfall. 3 ” Given the direction that the landlord provide an assessment, there is an onus on the landlord to prove compliance, which it has not done. The evidence does prove it more likely than not that insulation and ground moisture barrier requirements are now met.
The requirement to ensure premises are adequately insulated, predated the HH standards. That requirement applied to these premises from 1 July 2019. The evidence shows that the premises did not have compliant insulation due to displacement (see [Assessor] assessment) and required additional insulation (see invoice from Elite Insulation) which, along with photographic evidence tends to corroborate the tenant’s position that there was only an adequate thickness of ceiling insulation around the immediate area of the manhole into the ceiling cavity and it was not only displacement of the insulation that made it non-compliant.
Largely because of the landlord’s failure to comply with the Tribunal’s direction, the evidence does not enable a clear finding to be made about whether and to what extent the premises met HH standards as at 1 July 2025. It does enable a finding to be made that the premises did not comply with the pre-existing insulation requirements, in breach of s.45(1)(bb). I find that breach more likely than not to be intentional. Repair/ maintenance update
In her update provided for the hearing the tenant confirms that: a. the cracked window in the bedroom has been repaired; b. the pool needs a new liner and has not been fixed; c. the 4 main roof leaks have been repaired (but there are 2 new leaks); d. the lights in the downstairs area have been replaced but the power points have not. Nothing has been done to prevent future flooding; e. the handrails deck and stairs have not been repaired; f. there are 5 light fittings that still need to be fixed and that the problems with the house wiring itself have not been fixed g. the bathroom leak has been assessed as likely caused by roof leaks which have not been fixed. 3 R27 Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) Regulations 2019

Should work Orders be made?

Decking/ handrails/ stairs

The landlord consents to a work order being made that the landlord will repair the decking, handrails and stairs. Pool
The property manager’s evidence is that the pool has been assessed as needing a new liner at a cost of around $70,000.00, which the landlord says is not affordable for him. He proposes that the pool be filled in and used as garden space instead.
The tenant prefers to have the pool available. She says that as the pool has deteriorated over time due to lack of maintenance, she has had to spend more time and money making repairs to the lining to keep it useable, causing her loss and wastage of water that she pays for.
Given the evidence about the liner replacement cost, I do not make an Order requiring the landlord to replace it. The pool was part of what the landlord contracted to provide as part of the tenancy and the rent paid for it. The tenant should be compensated for the cost to her in keeping the pool useable, which I fix at $25.00 per week, as a rent abatement. Roof leaks
The landlord has had a comprehensive assessment done of the causes of the roof leaks that have continued despite replacement of the guttering in 2023. A report issued by North Shore Home Inspection on 17 May 2025 notes the very high moisture levels recorded on the East side of the house and in particular the bedroom located there. The report notes a number of design and installation flaws leading to the leaks. It recommends that the landlord engage a professional roofer or roofing contractor to further inspect the roof and provide guidance on the most appropriate solutions.
Because remedy of those fundamental issues may involve unknown and major remediation work, I do not consider it fair to make a work Order requiring the landlord to complete it. The evidence does not enable the Tribunal to assess what would be an appropriate monetary Order as an alternative to compliance. I find the appropriate remedy to be a continuation of the current agreed rent abatement until the problem is fixed. Electrical system
Photographs provided by the tenant of the electrical reticulation, including some showing an extension cord, cut off outside, with wires exposed to the elements which the tenant says she saw sparking, raise concerns about its safety.
The landlord has provided an electrical safety certificate from [Electrical Company] dated 11 April 2025. It confirms that the particular installation it relates to, is safe. The certificate notes that the electrician inspected the house wiring, pool pump sewerage system, water filtering and switchboard.
A later electrical report dated 8 July 2025 notes aspects of the outside/ garage wiring in particular, that need attention.
The evidence provided gives rise to questions about whether there are safety concerns with the electrical reticulation at the premises. A work Order should be issued to ensure there is a full assessment and remediation of any such issues. Water Supply
Effective retention of collected rainwater is essential for a property without mains water supply.
The evidence suggests that there are leaks in the water tanks. They must be fixed.
The tenant says that the infrastructure for collection of rainwater to feed into the water tanks is inadequate.
The landlord’s obligation is to, “... provide adequate means for the collection and storage of water.” 4 The evidence does not prove that the system, if in properly maintained condition, is not adequate for that purpose.
No work orders are made to upgrade the system. In the context of this tenancy, it should however be assessed, and improved if necessary, to ensure an adequate water supply is provided.

Should compensation or exemplary damages be awarded?

It is useful to set out here the approach the principles to be applied in assessing such claims.
If it is proved that the landlord breached his obligations causing the tenant loss, whether financial loss or in terms of lessening the tenant’s use and enjoyment or utility of the premises, damages may be awarded to compensate for that loss.
The RTA is subject to the Limitation Act 2010 so only losses arising from breaches within 6 years of the date of application can be claimed.
If the landlord’s breach constitutes an unlawful act, as defined in the RTA and is committed intentionally, exemplary damages may be awarded up to the maximum sum specified in Schedule 1A RTA.
The purpose of an award of exemplary damages is not to provide compensation to other party but to punish the unlawful act. 4 S.45 (1)(ca) RTA
For the claims brought by the tenant in this application, s.109(2) does not allow an application for exemplary damages to be brought later than 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act.
The RTA intends that a party should not suffer more than one punitive sanction for the same conduct (see ss. 109E and 137A). Here, the tenant alleges multiple separate breaches of the landlord’s maintenance and repair obligations under s.45(1)(b). Different individual breaches are alleged but if proved, all constitute an unlawful act under s.45(1A).
The District Court in Gardiner v Upland Bay Investments Limited noted: 5 “[28] Mr Opie also submitted, as noted above, that individual awards of exemplary damages should be made for each individual breach, in effect arguing that the statutory maximums as set out in Schedule 1A to the Act should apply not globally, but in respect to each individual breach. Accordingly, Mr Opie sought an award of exemplary damages of $1,000 (the statutory maximum) for Upland Bay's failure to lodge the bond, and $1,000 in exemplary damages for its refusal or omission to issue a receipt for the bond. In respect to the various breaches of building standards or health and safety requirements, he sought a separate award in respect to each failure, of $1,000 for each individual breach. [29] However, Schedule 1A is explicit, when setting the maximum amount awardable in relation to both s 19 and s 45 breaches, that the maximum applied to the breach of duties (plural), in the case of s 19 and the landlord's failure to meet obligations (also plural) in respect of s 45. The plural forms as adopted by the legislature in both instances indicate that the maximums are in respect to a global or total award for all breaches under the respective sections.”
Applying that approach here, I find that if the grounds are made out, the Tribunal is able to award exemplary damages, up to the maximum specified in schedule 1A for each breach of s.45(1) that constitutes an unlawful act under s.45(1A).
The unlawful act is constituted by a breach or breaches of the relevant subsection of s.45(1). A separate award is not available for each of multiple breaches of one of those subsections. So, for instance, here only one award may be made for breach of s.45(1)(b), which might comprise multiple breaches of a landlord’s maintenance and repair obligations.
A separate award may be made for a breach of s.45(1)(bb) in respect of healthy homes compliance. 5 Gardiner v Upland Bay Investments Limited DC Wellington CIV-2014-085-13, 27 August 2014

Should compensation be awarded?

The evidence does not prove that the landlord breached his obligation to provide the premises, at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness and repair. Some compensation was paid at the time. Even if that breach were proved, it occurred in 2015. The Limitation Act does not allow a compensation claim to be brought.
The evidence does prove, on balance, that the landlord breached his obligation to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair. The roofing report notes the poor quality of previous repair work undertaken. The tenant’s evidence proves the leaks, flooding, unsafe decks/ stairs/ railings, e-coli contamination, sewerage overflows, leaking water tank and unsafe electrical reticulation that have affected her use and enjoyment of the premises during her tenancy.
Some of those issues have had more immediate and profound but shorter term effects, such as sewerage overflow or flooding events or the bedroom ceiling becoming saturated to the point of collapsing on the tenant’s bed. Others have been less impactful but longer term, such as the safety issues with the decks and stairs, the deteriorating pool liner that the tenant has had to repair herself or the leaking water tank and ongoing leaks in the Eastern side of the house and resulting dampness and mould. Some of those issues were remediated in 2023, some more recently. Some have continued.
The landlord’s acknowledgment that the East facing bedroom is effectively unusable and of the other issues associated with that water entry, is recognised in the $150.00 per week rent rebate recently put in place. As compensation for the issue up to that point, I award a rent rebate of $50.00 per week from 17 February 2019 (6 years before the date of the tenant’s application) until that rent rebate took effect.
For the combined and various impacts on the tenant’s use and enjoyment of the premises caused by the other breaches of the landlord’s maintenance and repair obligations, I award a rent abatement of a further $50.00 per week from 17 February 2019 to date.
That is necessarily a broad assessment of the compensation due, taking into account the differences noted in the duration, effect and severity of the multiple breaches.

Should Exemplary Damages be awarded?

Repair and maintenance

Breach of the landlord’s obligation to keep the premises in a reasonable state of repair and maintenance is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $7,200.00 may be awarded.
I have found the landlord breached that obligation. The evidence shows that these issues were repeatedly brought to the landlord’s attention and the breaches were intentional.
Section 109(3) RTA provides that “If, on an application under subsection (1)..., the Tribunal is satisfied that the person against whom the order is sought committed the unlawful act intentionally, and that, having regard to— (a) the intent of that person in committing the unlawful act; and (b) the effect of the unlawful act; and (c) the interests of the landlord or the tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) the public interest,— it would be just to require the person against whom the order is sought to pay a sum in the nature of exemplary damages, the Tribunal may make an order accordingly.”
The tenant has proved multiple breaches of the landlord’s obligations under s.45(1)(b), each of which is an unlawful act under s.45(1A).
As noted, a separate award of exemplary damages should not be made for each individual breach of that that provision.
The evidence suggests a reluctance on the landlord’s part to properly address the fundamental repair/maintenance issues brought to his attention by the tenant. By doing so the tenant’s use and enjoyment of the premises has been badly impacted by the consequences of the premises not being in reasonable state of maintenance. Some of those impacts have been severe and risked the health of the tenant and her family.
In those circumstances, to recognise the severity and number of the landlord’s breaches and the public interest in deterring such an approach towards landlords’ responsibilities, I find that an award of the maximum available for a breach of s.45(1)(b) is just.
The landlord’s evidence highlights $56,882.42 having been spent since October 2024 on repair and maintenance of the premises. While that suggests recent attempts to address the issues with the premises, it can equally be seen as evidence of the extent of the deferred maintenance work, which the tenant has had to put up with until recently. HH Compliance
Breach of the obligation to comply with Healthy Homes requirements is an unlawful act attracting a maximum award of $7,200.00.
Any ongoing breach of the HH water ingress standard due to the roof/ guttering design and construction issues referred to, is not an intentional breach, given the steps taken by the landlord to identify and remedy the causes by compliance date.
I have found an intentional breach of the landlord’s obligation to comply with the insulation standard.
Looking at the s.109(3) criteria referred to above, I take into account the evidence that there was insulation installed in the ceiling. It does appear to have been placed in such a way as to appear more comprehensive in its cover than it was. I also think if fair to take into account that the Tribunal’s difficulty in making clear findings on the issue of Healthy Homes compliance results from the landlord having failed to provide the required evidence.
In terms of the effect on the tenant, her evidence is that she was immediately able to appreciate the improvement when compliant ceiling insulation was installed, highlighting, in contrast, the lack of that benefit since 2019.
Weighing those factors, I find it just to make a moderate award of exemplary damages for the landlord’s breach. Recent e-coli contamination
There was an e-coli contamination of the water supply in November 2024. It was resolved and a compensation payment of $5,000.00 to the tenant was agreed.
The tenant and the property manager each received 6 month reminder notifications on 26 April 2025 from Aqua Filtration and Treatment who had installed the system, that the filters were due to be changed.
The tenant’s evidence is that after follow up with the property manager, she was told that the contractors who had installed the system were too expensive and the landlord was looking at cheaper options.
Plumbers who were visiting the premises for another reason were asked to replace the filters, which they did on 17 July.
On 3 August the UV filter alarm sounded. The property manager was advised.
On 5 August a different plumbing firm replaced the UV bulb. The tenant had concerns about e-coli symptoms she and her family had and bought a test kit. The results came back positive for e-coli and lead.
The UV bulb could not be replaced until the specific bulb could be obtained. That was done on 14 August.
The tenant did another test on 16 August which was again positive.
The water was subsequently tested and shown to be safe through a Hills Laboratory report on 21 August.
The tenant’s position is that the landlord was negligent in not having Aqua Filtration and Treatment replace the filters at 6 months as recommended, preferring to use less specialist and cheaper plumbers.
The landlord disputes that saying the advice it received was that the filters did not necessarily need replacing at 6 months. A report from Franklin Water supports that position, suggesting that the problem arose from a quartz sleeve in the UV chamber being cracked, which it said could can only occur during installation. That assessment is supported by a report from PALSR Crucial Services Limited, which also assessed as a contributing factor the plumbers’ failure to dose the tank with steriliser and flush the lines.
The evidence does not prove that the e-coli contamination was caused by an intentional breach of the landlord’s obligations which could lead to an award of exemplary damages.
It is the case though, that through no fault of the tenant, she was without a water supply (the property manager did provide a very small quantity of drinking water) for 15 days. I find that in the circumstances the tenant was justified in not using the water until provided with the Hills Laboratory report proving no contamination.
The tenant says she should receive the same compensation ($5,000.00) that was agreed for the previous contamination. The Tribunal was not involved in that negotiation and needs to make its own assessment of reasonable compensation for the tenant’s loss. My assessment is that $100.00 per day for the period the premises had no water supply would be reasonable.
In this application the tenant also claims separate compensation for the water tank leaks. That compensation is included in the general compensation award above.

Should general damages be awarded?

In circumstances where it is difficult to calculate the loss caused to a tenant though breach of a landlord’s obligations, but where harm and loss is shown to have been caused, it is appropriate to consider making an award of general damages. The purpose of general damages is not to compensate for a quantifiable loss but to compensate for pain or suffering or emotional distress 6 ”
As to how general damages might be assessed, in Tenant v Ezy Rentals 7 the Tribunal said: “By reference to Otautahi, I consider the bands that might usefully inform the Tribunal’s decision in this case are: A. At the lower end of the scale, where a breach causes inconvenience, frustration, annoyance, or disappointment: an award of $200.00 to $2,000.00. B. Where due to the breach the party has endured more inconvenience and a higher level of mental distress such as worry, stress, tension, or anxiety: an award of $2,000.00 to $3,000.00. C. At the upper end of the scale, where the party has experienced hardship, insecurity, humiliation, intimidation, aggravation, or fear: an award of over $3,000.00.”
Applying that approach here, taking into account the considerations noted, the length of the tenancy and the other compensation awarded I find that an award at the top of the second band referred to above would be appropriate.
The tenant’s evidence shows ongoing difficulty, at least until the current property manager was appointed, in having her legitimate concerns adequately responded to. Instead piecemeal and often inadequate attempts were made at remediating some very serious issues with the premises, many of which the tenant was required to dealt with herself. For instance after seeking reimbursement for out of pocket costs (not her time) incurred in dealing with a 6 See Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 (at para [35]) 7 Tenant v Ezy Rentals [2022] NZTT 4323927 leak not of her making, she was told, the landlord would not pay for any further repairs for the next three years.
The tenant is entitled to recognition of the resulting difficulty, stress and frustration over many years of the tenancy.
Because the tenant has succeeded with claims brought I reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5158997 — Leaks at 179 Albany Heights Road, Dairy Flat, RD 2, Dairy Flat 0792

Tenancy Tribunal case 5158997 — Leaks at 179 Albany Heights Road, Dairy Flat, RD 2, Dairy Flat 0792

Order

Reasons

Were the premises made Healthy Homes compliant when required?

Should work Orders be made?

Should compensation or exemplary damages be awarded?

Should compensation be awarded?

Should Exemplary Damages be awarded?

Should general damages be awarded?

Order

Reasons

Were the premises made Healthy Homes compliant when required?

Should work Orders be made?

Should compensation or exemplary damages be awarded?

Should compensation be awarded?

Should Exemplary Damages be awarded?

Should general damages be awarded?