How much money was awarded in case 5201833?

Previous Order Application 5201833 D…: $30,859.48 awarded to landlord; Rent From 22 July: $4,620.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5201833?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5201833?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12396508-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5201833?

Previous Order Application 5201833 D…: $30,859.48 awarded to landlord; Rent From 22 July: $4,620.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5201833?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5201833?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12396508-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5201833 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5201833 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5201833 — net $35,479.48 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent from 22 July to 23 August 2025	$4,620.00	Rent from 22 July to 23 August 2025
Previous order application 5201833 dated 21/09/2025	$30,859.48	Previous order application 5201833 dated 21/09/2025
Net award	$35,479.48
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$35,479.48

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Toni Jamie Whakaara, Hoana Violet Whakaara, Xavier Tausili, Violet Whakaara and James Francis Whakaara must pay [The landlord/s] $35,479.48 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 21 July 2025 under application 5201833 for the purpose of enforcement.

Reasons

The landlord attended the telephone hearing today. Phone calls to Toni and Hoana Whakaara, the tenants with whom the landlord had most of her dealings, went to voicemail and failed to connect, respectively.

The Tribunal made an order on 21 July 2025, including an award of rent arrears to that date, and adjourned the application until after expiry of the fixed term on 23 August 2025.

As noted in the previous order, the property was marketed in June 2025 at the existing weekly rent of $980.00. The landlord explained that she had marketed the property in different ways. The house and sleepout had been listed together and the landlord also marketed the house and sleepout separately. The landlord said the house was advertised for $680.00 per week and the sleepout for $350.00.

The new tenants have agreed to rent the house and sleepout for $900.00 per week, which the landlord advises is the weekly rent the premises attracted 5 years ago. The new tenancy started on 30 August 2025.

Whether the landlord had a duty to mitigate their loss by finding new tenants depends on whether the premises were “abandoned”. This term is not defined in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). Section 61 of the Act provides the Tribunal with authority to terminate a tenancy and award exemplary damages where premises are abandoned. It also provides that the duty to mitigate does not apply in cases of abandonment (section 61(4)).

While the tenants are in breach of contract, having made a unilateral decision to vacate prior to expiry of the fixed term, I do not consider this is a case of abandonment. The tenants notified the landlord that they were leaving. The tenants purported to give 90-days’ notice of their intention to leave, and then notified the landlord when they had vacated. The landlord conducted a final inspection on 17 May 2025, which the tenants were invited to join, but the tenants did not attend or return the keys.

Because this was not a case of abandonment, the landlord had a duty to mitigate their loss by taking all reasonable steps to find new tenants. The landlord contracted for a fixed term of one year. The measure of the landlord’s loss is either the rent the landlord would have received to the end of the fixed term “but for” the tenants’ breach, or the loss of rent to earlier re-letting.

In my view, on the limited evidence available, and noting that the obligation to establish a failure to mitigate is on the tenants, the landlord did not act unreasonably by attempting to re-let the premises at the same rent. The market may have moved lower, but the landlord was entitled, acting reasonably, to test the market and adjust their expectations accordingly. The landlord has been flexible enough to re-let at a lower rent.

For the reasons given in the July order, I find that the tenants are only liable for rent to the end of the fixed term on 23 August 2025. Filing Fee and Bond

The filing fee has already been awarded and the bond has been refunded to the landlord.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5201833 — net $35,479.48 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent from 22 July to 23 August 2025	$4,620.00	Rent from 22 July to 23 August 2025
Previous order application 5201833 dated 21/09/2025	$30,859.48	Previous order application 5201833 dated 21/09/2025
Net award	$35,479.48
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$35,479.48

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Toni Jamie Whakaara, Hoana Violet Whakaara, Xavier Tausili, Violet Whakaara and James Francis Whakaara must pay [The landlord/s] $35,479.48 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 21 July 2025 under application 5201833 for the purpose of enforcement.

Reasons

The landlord attended the telephone hearing today. Phone calls to Toni and Hoana Whakaara, the tenants with whom the landlord had most of her dealings, went to voicemail and failed to connect, respectively.
The Tribunal made an order on 21 July 2025, including an award of rent arrears to that date, and adjourned the application until after expiry of the fixed term on 23 August 2025.
As noted in the previous order, the property was marketed in June 2025 at the existing weekly rent of $980.00. The landlord explained that she had marketed the property in different ways. The house and sleepout had been listed together and the landlord also marketed the house and sleepout separately. The landlord said the house was advertised for $680.00 per week and the sleepout for $350.00.
The new tenants have agreed to rent the house and sleepout for $900.00 per week, which the landlord advises is the weekly rent the premises attracted 5 years ago. The new tenancy started on 30 August 2025.
Whether the landlord had a duty to mitigate their loss by finding new tenants depends on whether the premises were “abandoned”. This term is not defined in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). Section 61 of the Act provides the Tribunal with authority to terminate a tenancy and award exemplary damages where premises are abandoned. It also provides that the duty to mitigate does not apply in cases of abandonment (section 61(4)).
While the tenants are in breach of contract, having made a unilateral decision to vacate prior to expiry of the fixed term, I do not consider this is a case of abandonment. The tenants notified the landlord that they were leaving. The tenants purported to give 90-days’ notice of their intention to leave, and then notified the landlord when they had vacated. The landlord conducted a final inspection on 17 May 2025, which the tenants were invited to join, but the tenants did not attend or return the keys.
Because this was not a case of abandonment, the landlord had a duty to mitigate their loss by taking all reasonable steps to find new tenants. The landlord contracted for a fixed term of one year. The measure of the landlord’s loss is either the rent the landlord would have received to the end of the fixed term “but for” the tenants’ breach, or the loss of rent to earlier re-letting.
In my view, on the limited evidence available, and noting that the obligation to establish a failure to mitigate is on the tenants, the landlord did not act unreasonably by attempting to re-let the premises at the same rent. The market may have moved lower, but the landlord was entitled, acting reasonably, to test the market and adjust their expectations accordingly. The landlord has been flexible enough to re-let at a lower rent.
For the reasons given in the July order, I find that the tenants are only liable for rent to the end of the fixed term on 23 August 2025. Filing Fee and Bond
The filing fee has already been awarded and the bond has been refunded to the landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5201833 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5201833 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions