What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5208634 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 5208634?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5208634?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5208634?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12675350-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5208634 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 5208634?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5208634?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5208634?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12675350-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5208634 — Exemplary damages

Order

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

Reasons

This application has had a long history with the Tribunal and has been the subject of numerous orders.
The tenancy was a boarding house tenancy. There were 9 tenants in total. The landlord (properly) served notices to terminate all the tenancies because they wanted to put the premises on the market for sale. 8 of the tenants complied with the termination notice; this tenant (at the last moment) did not.
On application by the landlord, I granted possession of the premises to the landlord based on the notice to terminate the tenancy, properly given.
I dismissed an application by the tenant to have the notice declared retaliatory: it was not.
The tenant refused to vacate the tenancy despite the Tribunal’s possession order. He was given more time by the bailiff but still he would not move. Eventually he was evicted with police involvement. The tenant’s application
The tenant applied for work orders, compensation, and exemplary damages for alleged breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. The hearing
The tenant instructed counsel to act for him. I held a telephone directions conference with the tenant’s counsel and counsel for the landlord. I made directions for the filing of submissions and evidence.
The tenant applied for a rehearing of my decision dismissing his application to have the termination declared retaliatory.
The hearing was scheduled for 13 October 2025. Both parties attended the hearing with counsel. On the day, Mr Zhu (without his counsel’s knowledge) had applied for an adjournment of the hearing. I declined that request.
Mr Zhu’s counsel was ready to proceed with the hearing, but Mr Zhu would not sign his statement of evidence, nor accept his counsel’s advice.
I granted leave for counsel to withdraw. His frustration was evident.
I told Mr Zhu that the hearing would proceed. I heard his application for rehearing. I dismissed that application with reasons in my order dated 13 October 2025. Directions at hearing
I agreed to allow Mr Zhu time to provide further evidence and submissions on the substantive issues raised in his application but on a strict timetable. I did that to allow him every opportunity to present his claims, given the withdrawal of his counsel.
Mr Zhu provided nothing further within the timeframe I set.
The landlord then withdrew their applications, and I have recorded that in a separate order today made on the landlord’s applications. Discussion
A feature of the tenant’s application has been repeated delays, adjournment requests, and a failure to comply with directions.
The Tribunal is a lay Tribunal, and it is well attuned to the issues some lay parties can encounter. It has been careful to try and accommodate Mr Zhu’s health issues and it has provided him with several opportunities to have more time to present his case. But the Tribunal must also balance the prejudice to the other party by repeated delays. That is why it made (final) timetabling directions to be strictly complied with.
In a recent District Court decision, Sainsbury DCJ observed: This puts Adjudicators in a very difficult situation. They are dealing with lay litigants. The ordinary rules of evidence and procedure do not apply. Yet they must adhere to the legal principles articulated in the RTA when resolving what can be complex and multilayered claims. This means they must keep the lay litigants focused on legal principles they may not know of or understand. To ensure procedural fairness and to have any hope of a considered and sound outcome, the Adjudicator must impose a structure on the proceeding. It is necessary that parties have their turn and address each issue in a coherent way. Achieving this in what can be a heated environment, requires the patience of Job and the wisdom of Solomon.
Much of the tenant’s application has been overtaken by events. The Tribunal has already indicated that it cannot make work orders when a tenancy has ended. The issue of retaliatory notice has been decided and the tenant’s rehearing dismissed.
At the directions conference I held with counsel I pointed out that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with some of the matters raised by Mr Zhu – allegations of drug dealing, drug use, and suggestions of fraud and corruption by the landlord. Those are all matters for the Police.
The only live issue I can identify is the allegation that the landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment by permitting an interference with his reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy in the use of the premises 1 . 1 See section 66G Residential Tenancies Act 1986
This allegation refers to an incident when people, including another tenant, burst into Mr Zhu’s room and assaulted him. He also alleges on-going intimidation by these, and other, people.
As counsel for the landlord submitted, the landlord cannot prevent something like that from occurring; it is the landlord’s response to it that matters.
Mr Zhu seemed to allege that the landlord was somehow complicit in what happened. He has failed to establish that on the balance of probabilities.
The assault was a police matter and was reported to them. That it occurred does not establish a breach by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. I am satisfied that the landlord took appropriate actions once the incident was drawn to their attention.
Perhaps if Mr Zhu has let his counsel present the submissions prepared on his behalf, his application might have succeeded in part. But he would not sign the statement of evidence his counsel had prepared. And generally, he would not co-operate with the hearing process. He kept insisting on an adjournment when I had already made it clear there would be no adjournment, given the history of delay.
I have already noted the lengths the Tribunal went to so Mr Zhu had every opportunity to present evidence and his own submissions to advance his case, but he failed to do so.
The Tribunal took every reasonable step to allow Mr Zhu the opportunity to present his case with evidence. It granted adjournments, made directions, and allowed extensions of time, to a point where the other party might have felt (and probably did feel) disadvantaged. While he presented some written material, he did not address it in a manner that was evidentially sound.
It is not the Tribunal’s role to advance one party’s case or to go looking for a cause of action.
Unfortunately, as with Mr Zhu’s failure to comply with the Tribunal’s possession order ultimately resulting in an eviction, he has failed to comply with the opportunities afforded to him. Result
Mr Zhu has failed to prove any breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities such that the Tribunal could award him compensation or exemplary damages. The application is dismissed. Name suppression
Mr Zhu sought name suppression in his application. He is not entitled to a name suppression order as his application is unsuccessful. The landlord is entitled to name suppression as their defence to the application is successful 2 .

Order

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

Reasons

This application has had a long history with the Tribunal and has been the subject of numerous orders.
The tenancy was a boarding house tenancy. There were 9 tenants in total. The landlord (properly) served notices to terminate all the tenancies because they wanted to put the premises on the market for sale. 8 of the tenants complied with the termination notice; this tenant (at the last moment) did not.
On application by the landlord, I granted possession of the premises to the landlord based on the notice to terminate the tenancy, properly given.
I dismissed an application by the tenant to have the notice declared retaliatory: it was not.
The tenant refused to vacate the tenancy despite the Tribunal’s possession order. He was given more time by the bailiff but still he would not move. Eventually he was evicted with police involvement. The tenant’s application
The tenant applied for work orders, compensation, and exemplary damages for alleged breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. The hearing
The tenant instructed counsel to act for him. I held a telephone directions conference with the tenant’s counsel and counsel for the landlord. I made directions for the filing of submissions and evidence.
The tenant applied for a rehearing of my decision dismissing his application to have the termination declared retaliatory.
The hearing was scheduled for 13 October 2025. Both parties attended the hearing with counsel. On the day, Mr Zhu (without his counsel’s knowledge) had applied for an adjournment of the hearing. I declined that request.
Mr Zhu’s counsel was ready to proceed with the hearing, but Mr Zhu would not sign his statement of evidence, nor accept his counsel’s advice.
I granted leave for counsel to withdraw. His frustration was evident.
I told Mr Zhu that the hearing would proceed. I heard his application for rehearing. I dismissed that application with reasons in my order dated 13 October 2025. Directions at hearing
I agreed to allow Mr Zhu time to provide further evidence and submissions on the substantive issues raised in his application but on a strict timetable. I did that to allow him every opportunity to present his claims, given the withdrawal of his counsel.
Mr Zhu provided nothing further within the timeframe I set.
The landlord then withdrew their applications, and I have recorded that in a separate order today made on the landlord’s applications. Discussion
A feature of the tenant’s application has been repeated delays, adjournment requests, and a failure to comply with directions.
The Tribunal is a lay Tribunal, and it is well attuned to the issues some lay parties can encounter. It has been careful to try and accommodate Mr Zhu’s health issues and it has provided him with several opportunities to have more time to present his case. But the Tribunal must also balance the prejudice to the other party by repeated delays. That is why it made (final) timetabling directions to be strictly complied with.
In a recent District Court decision, Sainsbury DCJ observed: This puts Adjudicators in a very difficult situation. They are dealing with lay litigants. The ordinary rules of evidence and procedure do not apply. Yet they must adhere to the legal principles articulated in the RTA when resolving what can be complex and multilayered claims. This means they must keep the lay litigants focused on legal principles they may not know of or understand. To ensure procedural fairness and to have any hope of a considered and sound outcome, the Adjudicator must impose a structure on the proceeding. It is necessary that parties have their turn and address each issue in a coherent way. Achieving this in what can be a heated environment, requires the patience of Job and the wisdom of Solomon.
Much of the tenant’s application has been overtaken by events. The Tribunal has already indicated that it cannot make work orders when a tenancy has ended. The issue of retaliatory notice has been decided and the tenant’s rehearing dismissed.
At the directions conference I held with counsel I pointed out that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with some of the matters raised by Mr Zhu – allegations of drug dealing, drug use, and suggestions of fraud and corruption by the landlord. Those are all matters for the Police.
The only live issue I can identify is the allegation that the landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment by permitting an interference with his reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy in the use of the premises 1 . 1 See section 66G Residential Tenancies Act 1986
This allegation refers to an incident when people, including another tenant, burst into Mr Zhu’s room and assaulted him. He also alleges on-going intimidation by these, and other, people.
As counsel for the landlord submitted, the landlord cannot prevent something like that from occurring; it is the landlord’s response to it that matters.
Mr Zhu seemed to allege that the landlord was somehow complicit in what happened. He has failed to establish that on the balance of probabilities.
The assault was a police matter and was reported to them. That it occurred does not establish a breach by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. I am satisfied that the landlord took appropriate actions once the incident was drawn to their attention.
Perhaps if Mr Zhu has let his counsel present the submissions prepared on his behalf, his application might have succeeded in part. But he would not sign the statement of evidence his counsel had prepared. And generally, he would not co-operate with the hearing process. He kept insisting on an adjournment when I had already made it clear there would be no adjournment, given the history of delay.
I have already noted the lengths the Tribunal went to so Mr Zhu had every opportunity to present evidence and his own submissions to advance his case, but he failed to do so.
The Tribunal took every reasonable step to allow Mr Zhu the opportunity to present his case with evidence. It granted adjournments, made directions, and allowed extensions of time, to a point where the other party might have felt (and probably did feel) disadvantaged. While he presented some written material, he did not address it in a manner that was evidentially sound.
It is not the Tribunal’s role to advance one party’s case or to go looking for a cause of action.
Unfortunately, as with Mr Zhu’s failure to comply with the Tribunal’s possession order ultimately resulting in an eviction, he has failed to comply with the opportunities afforded to him. Result
Mr Zhu has failed to prove any breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities such that the Tribunal could award him compensation or exemplary damages. The application is dismissed. Name suppression
Mr Zhu sought name suppression in his application. He is not entitled to a name suppression order as his application is unsuccessful. The landlord is entitled to name suppression as their defence to the application is successful 2 .

Tenancy Tribunal case 5208634 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5208634 — 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