Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5226073 — Tenancy dispute
Decided 13 Apr 2026 · Published 13 Apr 2026 · Application 5226073
Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Adjudicator
N Bradley
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.
Order
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,010.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $400.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,010.00
- The Tribunal orders suppression of both the landlord and tenant’s names and identifying details.
- This order is in full and final settlement of all claims relating to the tenancy (whether filed or not).
- The above orders are conditional on neither party filing a claim against the other in any other jurisdiction in relation to the issues raised in these proceedings. In the event that one party files a claim against the other party in another jurisdiction in relation to issues raised in these proceedings, the other party may file a fresh application in this Tribunal.
Reasons
- The landlord attended the hearing with a support person.
- This matter was scheduled for a one-day face-to-face hearing in the Tauranga registry on 10 April 2026. Approximately one hour before the hearing the tenant applied for an adjournment.
- Adjournments are not granted as of right, even if both parties consent. The onus rests on the party seeking the adjournment to demonstrate that it is necessary and appropriate in the circumstances. In deciding whether to grant an adjournment, the Tribunal will balance: (a) the interests of justice; (b) fairness to all parties; (c) the efficient use of Tribunal resources; and (d) the public interest in the timely disposition of matters before the Tribunal.
- The Tribunal discourages late or repeated adjournment requests and expects parties to be ready to proceed on scheduled hearing dates. Adjournments may be granted where there is good and sufficient reason, which may include (but is not limited to): (a) unforeseen illness, incapacity or genuine unavailability of a party, representative, or key witness; (b) genuine and recent changes in representation; (c) inadequate time to prepare due to late notice of the hearing; (d) ongoing settlement discussions where there is a realistic prospect of resolution; or (e) other exceptional circumstances.
- A Chronology is set out below. • 23 November 2024 – The tenancy commenced. • 18 February 2025 – the landlord gave the tenant notice to terminate the tenancy. • 12 April 2025 – the tenancy ended. • 6 May 2026 – Tenant files her application. • 27 May 2025 – applications scheduled for a case conference for 24 July 2025. • 17 July 2025 – landlord files cross-application. • 17 July 2205 - Case conference of 24 July 2025 adjourned as tenant unwell. • 25 July 2025 – application scheduled for case conference for 16 September 2025. • 8 September 2025 –the tenant requests an adjournment for health reasons. A medical certificate is provided. • 9 September 2025 – the adjournment request is granted. • 10 September 2025 – case conference scheduled for 6 November 2025. • 4 November 2025 – tenant applies for an adjournment for health reasons. No medical certificate is provided. • 5 November 2025- The hearing is adjourned. The parties are advised of the Adjudicators directions: o “I am allowing the adjournment given the evidence provided by the tenant regarding her health issues. However, I accept that this adjournment has caused significant distress to the landlord and so I am requiring that if the tenant is unable to attend any subsequent hearing due to her health, she is to appoint a representative so that the hearing can proceed. The next hearing will be a case conference so that all claims made by the parties can be ascertained and clearly set out. The applications will then be heard at a later date in a face-to-face hearing” • 2 December 2025 – case conference is scheduled for 29 January 2026 – remote. • 28 January 2026 - the landlord applies for an adjournment of the case conference due to health reasons. The adjournment request is not provided to me before the case conference and the case conference proceeded. Directions made for the filing of evidence and for the matter to be scheduled for a one day hearing face-to-face. • Directions for the filing of evidence were not complied with. • 19 February 2026 – the hearing is scheduled for 10 April 2026. • 10 April 2026 – the morning of the hearing the tenant applies for an adjournment for health reasons. No medical certificate is provided. The parties are advised: o The adjudicator declines to grant the adjournment at this time; however the adjournment request will be discussed further at the hearing. o The tenant is expected to appear in person however she will be phoned for the hearing if she does not appear on the phone number ... She is to advise if she has an alternative phone number.
- The tenant was phoned at the commencement of the hearing. I heard from the parties at the commencement of the hearing. The landlord opposed the adjournment request. The tenant reiterated she was experiencing serious health issues.
- I declined to grant the adjournment, and indicated I would hear the landlord’s claims and adjourn the tenant’s claims to a later date. My reasons for this are set out below.
- I accept that the tenant has complex bowel issues. The tenant’s illnesses appear to be longstanding. I needed to balance this with the other relevant considerations: a. The tenant’s application was filed nearly one year ago. b. The landlord suffers her own ill health, the stress of these proceedings may exacerbate that. c. The interest of justice and fairness requires prompt resolution of these matters.
- The tenant was offered the option of remaining on the phone for the hearing. I also asked if she would like time to call her doctor and be called back later in the hearing. The tenant declined.
- The hearing proceeded however after a short break and some discussion with the landlord I was able to phone the tenant again with a proposal to resolve this matter by way of the landlord receiving $400 of the bond (total bond held $1,010) and the balance being paid to the tenant. The tenant spoke with her mother about this proposal (away from the hearing but still connected by phone) and accepted this proposal. Full and final settlement:
- Accordingly, after discussion today the parties have come to an agreement as reflected in the order above. The settlement reached and recorded in this Order has been made by consent of both parties in full and final settlement of all claims arising from this tenancy, whether filed or not.
- The order is conditional on neither party filing any further claims in respect of the issues and events raised in these proceedings in any other jurisdiction. In the event that one party files a claim against the other in another jurisdiction, the other party may refile their claims.
- Given the procedural history of delays in this matter and both parties respective health issues I consider this to be a fair and expeditious resolution of the disputes between these parties. Suppression
- As the order is by consent and reflects the agreement the parties reached, I have suppressed the names and identifying details of both parties. The agreement reached is akin to a mediated agreement, in which case it would have been confidential. There is no public interest in the case that requires publication. 1