What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5221298 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy agreement between the parties was for a fixed term.

How much money was awarded in case 5221298?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5221298?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5221298?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12596031-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5221298 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy agreement between the parties was for a fixed term.

How much money was awarded in case 5221298?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5221298?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5221298?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12596031-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

8B South Lynn Road, Titirangi, Auckland 0604 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5221298 — Exemplary damages

Order

The tenancy agreement between the parties was for a fixed term.
The tenant breached section 48(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by unreasonably withholding consent for the landlord to access the premises.
The landlord’s claim that the tenant breached the fixed term tenancy agreement by ending it early is dismissed.
The landlord’s claims for compensation are dismissed.

Reasons

This is a reserved decision. The first hearing for this matter was held on 21 May 2025. The hearing was adjourned to allow the landlord to arrange for his witness to attend the hearing.
The second hearing took place on 15 September 2025 at Waitakere District Court. Mr Travedi, of Barfoot and Thompson, attended this hearing as a witness.
A further follow up hearing was held on 17 October 2025 by telephone.
The tenant attended the hearings. Mr Jain attended the hearings for the landlord. Mr Jain confirmed that he had authority to speak for the other landlord.
This is a counterclaim. The tenant claims that the tenancy was for a fixed term and was not due to end until April 2026. The tenant had initially claimed that the landlord had unlawfully terminated the tenancy and had breached the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of the premises. However, at the first hearing the tenant confirmed that the only claim he was pursuing was for a declaration that the tenancy agreement was for a fixed term ending in April 2026. The tenant said he was not pursuing the other claims or seeking compensation from the landlord.
The landlord claims that at the relevant time the tenancy was a periodic tenancy and that the tenant unreasonably refused access to the premises. The landlord is seeking compensation for financial losses and for the stress the landlord says the tenant’s caused by unreasonably refusing access. The landlord is also seeking reimbursement of the filing fee.
The landlord claims that if the Tribunal finds that the tenancy was for a fixed term, the tenant breached the tenancy agreement by terminating the tenancy before the end of the fixed term. The landlord is seeking compensation for loss of rent
The landlord’s claim was initially for just over $100,000.00. The landlord confirmed during the hearing that they agreed to reduce the value of the claim to up to $100,000 in order to stay within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. A. RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS:
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”. The party bringing the claim 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 Kaipo 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 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.
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 during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. B. AT THE RELEVANT TIME, WAS THE TENANCY AGREEMENT A FIXED

TERM TENANCY OR A PERIODIC TENANCY?

Relevant background:

The parties entered into a tenancy agreement on 02 March 2024 (the “Tenancy Agreement”). The Tenancy Agreement provides that it is for a fixed term starting on 15 March 2024 and ending on 15 February 2025.
On 01 January 2025, the landlord sent the tenant a text message saying: Are you planning to stay in the house for long term or have any plans to move out sometime soon so I can plan things out accordingly.
The tenant responded saying: “[w]e would like to stay longer term if that works with you?” The landlord responded saying: “[s]o around 1 more year from April?”. The tenant responded saying “yes if that’s good with you?’ and the landlord replied: “yea that will be good”.
On 27 March 2025, the landlord advised the tenant that he had been approached by an agent on behalf of a prospective purchaser who was looking at purchasing the premises and asked for the prospective purchaser to have access to the premises. The tenant agreed.
On the same date, the landlord entered into a sales and purchase agreement to sell the premises.
On 30 March 2025, the prospective purchaser viewed the premises with an agent.
On the same day, the parties corresponded with each other with the landlord asserting that the tenancy had become a periodic tenancy and the tenant saying the tenancy was for a fixed term for one year from April 2025.
Later that day, the landlord gave the tenant 90 days’ notice to end the tenancy on 29 June 2025. The reason given was that the landlord intended to market the premises for sale.
On 11 April 2025, the tenant gave notice to end the tenancy.
The tenancy ended on 09 May 2025. Was the agreement to extend the fixed term invalid because it was not in writing and signed by both parties?
Section 60A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides: On the expiry of a fixed-term tenancy of more than 90 days, the tenancy continues as a periodic tenancy with the same terms as the terms contained in the expired tenancy so far as those terms are consistent with a periodic tenancy.
That sub-section does not apply in certain circumstances including where the parties enter into a new tenancy agreement or agree to extend the existing tenancy agreement.
The tenant says that the parties’ text message exchange 01 January 2025 amounted to an agreement to extend the fixed term agreement for a year from April 2025 and that this was legally binding. The tenant says that following this exchange, he had two conversations with the landlord where the landlord said the “paperwork” would be sent to him. The tenant said he believed this was the documentation regarding the extension of the fixed term tenancy. The tenant said at no point (until it suited them) did the landlord mention the term “periodic tenancy”.
The landlord says that text message of exchange 01 January 2025 was not legally binding because it was not in writing and signed by both parties as required by the RTA. The landlord agrees that he had two conversations with the tenant after the text message exchange in January but denies saying that he would be sending the tenant paperwork. The landlord says that at no point did during the 01 January 2025 text message exchange or the conversations afterwards did they use the term “fixed term”.
The requirement for a tenancy agreement to be in writing and signed by both parties is set out at section 13(1) of the RTA. This section provides that before the commencement of the tenancy the landlord must sign the tenancy agreement and provide a copy of it to the tenant.
Section 13B of the RTA provides that: (1) Every variation of a tenancy agreement, and every renewal of a tenancy agreement, shall be in writing and signed by both the landlord and the tenant. (2) The landlord shall, before the date on which the variation or renewal of the tenancy is to take effect, provide the tenant with a copy of the variation or renewal.
However, a failure by the landlord to comply with the requirement to ensure a tenancy agreement or variation is in writing and signed does not mean the agreement or variation is invalid. Section 13C of the RTA provides: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary and any other enactment, no tenancy agreement, or variation or renewal of a tenancy agreement, shall be unenforceable on the grounds that it is not in writing. Was the agreement to vary the Tenancy Agreement by extending the fixed term void for lack of certainty?
For a contract to be legally binding, the fundamental terms of the contract must be sufficiently certain. This is because for a contract to be enforceable, the parties must have intended to create legal relations. If the main terms are not certain, it may not be possible to ascertain the contractual intention of the parties.
In Svenson v Ngakuru (2007) 9 NZCPR 149 (HC), it was noted that the courts will only rarely find that a contract is unenforceable for uncertainty. The courts will do their best to give effect to the parties’ intention to create legal relations. (See G Scammell and Nephew Ltd v Ouston [1941] AC 251 (HL) at 268; and Electricity Corp of New Zealand Ltd v Fletcher Challenge Energy Ltd [2002] 2 NZLR (CA) at [58]).
The landlord says that text message exchange on 01 January 2025 could not amount to an agreement to vary the Tenancy Agreement because the end date was not certain. The tenant denies that the terms were not sufficiently certain and says he believed that the fixed term had been extended to one year from April 2025.
As set out above, the landlord said “about 1 year” and “from April”. In my view, the fact that a specific date is not mentioned does not make the agreement void for uncertainty.
I find that while there are different interpretations of this wording, the most logical one is that the term would be at least one year from 01 April 2025, meaning the earliest the term could end would be 31 March 2026.
I find that the text message exchange of 01 January 2025 amounted to a legally binding agreement to vary the tenancy agreement by extending the fixed term agreement to one year from April 2025.
The agreement to vary the tenancy agreement is not void for lack of certainty or because it was not in writing and signed by both parties as required by the RTA. C. DID THE TENANT BREACH SECTION 48 OF THE RTA BY UNREASONABLY WITHHOLDING CONSENT FOR THE LANDLORD TO ACCESS THE

PREMISES?

The landlord claims that the tenant has breached section 48 of the RTA by failing to allow a valuer instructed by the purchaser to access the premises.
Section 48(1) and (2) of the RTA provides that a landlord may enter the premises during the tenancy with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. Subsection 48(3) of the RTA provides that: [w]ith the prior consent of the tenant, the landlord may enter the premises at any reasonable time for the purpose of showing the premises— ....(b) to prospective purchasers; or (c) to a registered valuer engaged in the preparation of a report on the premises; or (d) to a real estate agent engaged in appraising, evaluating, or selling or otherwise disposing of the premises; or ...
Where section 48(3) of the RTA applies, the landlord must first obtain the prior consent of the tenant. However, subsection 48(3A) of the RTA provides that while the tenant can make reasonable conditions relating to the granting of access, the tenant must not unreasonably withhold consent.
The purchaser visited the premises with the landlord’s agent on 27 March 2025. The tenant agreed to this access (albeit, the tenant says he agreed to the purchaser viewing the premises with a building inspector not an agent) and said he did so because at that point he thought the landlord would honour the fixed term agreement and that any sale of the premises would simply mean a change in landlord.
On 31 March 2025, several messages were exchanged between the parties where the parties disagreed over whether the tenancy was for a fixed term or periodic. The landlord (asserting that the tenancy was periodic) advised the tenant that he would be terminating the tenancy. In the messages, the landlord wrote: ... I will have to sell the house. So will request your cooperation on that when the valuation and building reports are being done.
The tenant’s response included “[i]n regards to property valuations, real estate agents etc I confirm that no one will enter this property”.
Later that day, after attempting to telephone the tenant and not receiving a response, the landlord sent the following text message: This is to inform you that Property valuer will need to access the property at 11AM This Thursday. Consider this as a 48 hour access notice.
The tenant’s response included: In regards to your 48hr notice of your property valuer this Is to confirm I do not give permission to enter my home this is in line with legislation of the tenancy NZ website. This is not a suitable time for my family and while its it is under review with the NZ tenancy tribunal we will not be allowing any access to the premises.
On 11 April 2025, the landlord asked the tenant again for access to the premises. The tenant responded saying “... after the stress you have put us through no. On the 9 th of may go for it”. 09 May was the last day of the tenancy.
There was further correspondence between the parties and the tenant eventually agreed to accommodate requests for access to the premises.
The tenant said that the reason why he did not allow access from 31 March 2025 to 11 April 2025 was because: his three children were at home sick; he wanted to wait for the Tribunal hearing; and he believed the landlord was untrustworthy. The tenant says that this belief was based on the landlord not honouring the agreement that the tenancy was fixed term until April 2026 and because when they had allowed access for a building inspection on 27 March 2025, an agent attended the premises instead of a building inspector.
As the access sought was for a valuer to prepare a report on the premises, the landlord could not give 48 hours’ notice, the landlord had to obtain the tenant’s consent. However, the tenant could not unreasonably withhold this consent. In NONE vs Butcher, Susan [2025] NZTT 5302509, the Tribunal had to determine if the tenant had unreasonably withheld access. In that case, the Adjudicator provided examples of when it might be reasonable to withhold consent such as a celebration or family event being held at the premises at the time consent is requested.
In that case, the reason given by the tenant was because it was school holidays (presumably that meant children would be at home) and the tenant was busy packing. The Tribunal found that those were not reasonable grounds to withhold consent.
Given the history of this matter, I find by a small margin, that the tenant did unreasonably withhold consent for the period from 31 March 2025 to 11 April 2025. Regardless of the dispute between the parties or the tenant’s beliefs of the trustworthiness of the landlord, the tenant was obliged to be reasonable about access to the premises as required by section 48. The tenant would not have compromised his position for his Tenancy Tribunal claim by allowing the access.
Sick children could be a reasonable ground for withholding access. However, the written evidence does not indicate that this was a reason let alone the main reason, the tenant was refusing access. If the reason for reason for refusing access was because the children were unwell, I would have expected this to have been referred to in the text message exchange along with an estimate of when they were likely to recover and access could be granted.
The landlord’s claim that the tenant breached section 48 of the RTA by unreasonably withholding consent for access to the premises is upheld. D. SHOULD THE LANDLORD BE AWARDED DAMAGES FOR THE TENANT’S

UNREASONABLE REFUSAL TO ALLOW ACCESS?

Failure to allow access is an unlawful act and the Tribunal can award exemplary damages. The landlord confirmed that they are not seeking exemplary damages, they are seeking compensation of up to $100,000.00 for damages. The landlord says that because the tenant would not allow the purchaser’s valuer to access the premises, the house sale fell through, they were not able sell the premises, the market value of the premises has now fallen, and they have suffered a financial loss. The landlord says that the tenant’s breach of section 48 caused them emotional stress and is claiming compensation for that stress. Was the tenant’s unreasonable refusal to allow access to the premises the reason why the purchaser cancelled the sales and purchase agreement?
The landlord says the purchaser cancelled the sales and purchase agreement because they could not get access to the property to get the valuation they needed to obtain finance.
The sales and purchase agreement of 27 March 2025 provided that the settlement date was 42 days from the unconditional date. The conditions were to be satisfied by 10 days from 27 March 2025. Therefore, the landlord was to deliver vacant possession of the premises to the purchaser approximately 52 days from 27 March 2025.
I have found that the tenancy was a fixed term tenancy which was not due to end until 31 March 2026 at the earliest. Given that the purchaser was expecting vacant possession of the premises on or about 18 May 2025, I consider it is highly unlikely that the purchaser would have agreed to purchase the premises or continued with the agreement had they known that the Tenancy Agreement was for a fixed term until at least 31 March 2026.
The landlord’s real estate agent for the sale of the premises, Mr Travedi, attended the hearing as a witness. Mr Travedi provided a number of text messages between him and the purchaser. Some of these messages took place after the landlord had given 90 days’ notice to the tenant to terminate the tenancy. The messages show that the purchaser wanted vacant possession of the premises within two months. After Mr Travedi said this would not be possible, the purchaser advised that they had made an offer on another premises.
While the tenant’s failure to allow access for the valuation was undoubtably frustrating, I find that the tenant cannot be liable to the landlord for any financial losses arising out of the purchaser cancelling the sales and purchase agreement. This is because the landlord was not in a position to honour the settlement date for vacant possession in the sales and purchase agreement. For this reason, the landlord’s claim for compensation for the purchaser withdrawing from the sale and purchase agreement is dismissed.

Should the landlord be compensated for stress / emotional harm?

The landlord has claimed compensation for stress. The landlord says that the tenant’s refusal to allow him access to the premises caused him stress and is seeking financial compensation for that stress.
Generally, New Zealand courts do not compensate for mental distress in contract cases. In Bloxham v Robinson [1996] 2 NZLR 664, the majority of the Court of Appeal held that: ... damages for anguish and vexation arising out of breach of contract were not recoverable unless the contract was to provide for peace of mind or freedom from distress. They were not recoverable for breach of a purely commercial contract.
It is not an object of the Tenancy Agreement to provide peace of mind or freedom from distress to the landlord. While I accept that the tenant’s refusal to unreasonably refuse access to the premises caused the landlord stress, I dismiss the landlords’ claim for compensation for this stress. E. DID THE TENANT BREACH THE FIXED TERM TENANCY AGREEMENT BY

ENDING THE TENANCY BEFORE THE END DATE?

The landlord claims that if the Tribunal does not find that the tenancy was periodic, the tenant breached the Tenancy Agreement by ending the tenancy before the end date. The landlord is seeking compensation for loss of rent as a result of the tenant’s alleged breach.
The tenant says he gave notice to terminate the tenancy because the landlord did not believe the tenancy was for a fixed term, had given him notice to terminate the tenancy and because the landlord’s correspondence was causing him stress.
The Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA) applies to tenancy agreements. The CCLA sets out several grounds where a party may cancel a contract including where the other party has repudiated the contract. Repudiation will occur where one party to a contract makes it clear to the other party that that they do not intend to perform or continue performance of the contract.
As set out above, I have found that the Tenancy Agreement was varied to extend the end date to at least 31 March 2025. The end date was an essential part of the Tenancy Agreement. By asserting that the tenancy was a periodic tenancy and giving notice to terminate the Tenancy Agreement before the end of the fixed term, the landlord made it clear that they did not consider they were bound by the fixed term.
I find that the landlord genuinely believed that the tenancy agreement had become periodic. There is not necessarily a repudiation where there is a genuine misinterpretation as to the meaning of a contract (see Johnstone v Milling (1886) 16 QBD 460 at 468). The question is: was there an intention to refuse to perform the contract?
In this case, the landlord had been advised by the tenant that the tenant considered they had a binding fixed term contract. By giving the tenant 90 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy before the end of the fixed term, the landlord made it clear that they did not intend to perform the contract. This amounts to a repudiation of the Tenancy Agreement and the tenant was entitled to accept the repudiation and terminate the tenancy.
The landlord’s claim that the tenant breached the Tenancy Agreement by ending the fixed term early is dismissed. F. FILING FEE AND SUPPRESSION:
While both parties have had some success with their claims, I do not consider that either party has been wholly or substantially successful. For this reason, I decline to award reimbursement of the filing fee to either party and both parties’ applications for suppression are dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5221298 — Exemplary damages at 8B South Lynn Road, Titirangi, Auckland 0604

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5221298 — Exemplary damages at 8B South Lynn Road, Titirangi, Auckland 0604

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

TERM TENANCY OR A PERIODIC TENANCY?

PREMISES?

UNREASONABLE REFUSAL TO ALLOW ACCESS?

Should the landlord be compensated for stress / emotional harm?

ENDING THE TENANCY BEFORE THE END DATE?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

TERM TENANCY OR A PERIODIC TENANCY?

PREMISES?

UNREASONABLE REFUSAL TO ALLOW ACCESS?

Should the landlord be compensated for stress / emotional harm?

ENDING THE TENANCY BEFORE THE END DATE?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions