What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5237452?

The tribunal order states: The Worx Property Management Limited - As Agent For Kajol Enterprise

How much money was awarded in case 5237452?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $9,140.76 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5237452?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5237452?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12327203-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5237452?

The tribunal order states: The Worx Property Management Limited - As Agent For Kajol Enterprise

How much money was awarded in case 5237452?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $9,140.76 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5237452?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5237452?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12327203-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

52 Jellicoe Avenue, Tuakau, Tuakau 2121 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5237452 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5237452 — net $5,567.76 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 27 August 2025 (less failure to mitigate loss	$9,140.76	Rent arrears to 27 August 2025 (less failure to mitigate loss
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,567.76
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,567.76

Order

The Worx Property Management Limited - As Agent For Kajol Enterprise Limited is granted possession of the premises at 52 Jellicoe Avenue, Tuakau, Tuakau 2121 immediately.
Debbie Li must pay The Worx Property Management Limited - As Agent For Kajol Enterprise Limited $5,567.76 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,600.00 (6025548-003) to The Worx Property Management Limited - As Agent For Kajol Enterprise Limited immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, which took place over two days on 20 August 2025 and 27 August 2025.
The tenancy began on 21 July 2023. The landlord filed their application with the Tribunal on 15 April 2025 seeking an order for rent arrears. On 12 June 2025, the tenant sent the landlord a notice ending the tenancy. The last day of the tenancy recorded in the notice is 4 July 2025. The landlord claims the tenant did not vacate the premises on this date and has yet to return the keys. The landlord seeks an order for possession, as well as rent arrears up to 27 August 2025. The issues I must determine are: a. To what standard must the landlord prove their claim? b. Should an order for possession be made in favour of the landlord? c. How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears? d. Has the landlord acted reasonably to mitigate their loss?

To what standard must the landlord prove their claim?

As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they 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 Katipo 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 of 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 at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

Should an order for possession be made in favour of the landlord?

The law

Section 51(2A) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states that a tenant may terminate a periodic tenancy in any case by giving at least 21 days’ notice.
Section 64(1) and (2) RTA states that the Tribunal must make an order granting possession of the premises to any person entitled to possession following the termination of the tenancy, unless more than 90 days have passed since the termination date. Analysis
The tenancy was a periodic tenancy. On 12 June 2025, the tenant sent the landlord a notice ending the tenancy. The end date recorded in the notice is 4 July 2025, which is more than 21 days after the notice was sent to the landlord.
The landlord gave evidence the notice was never revoked by the tenant. The tenant accepts this was the case. There is a disagreement between the parties regarding how long the tenant continued to live in the premises or store their personal belongings after 4 July 2025.
I find the tenancy terminated on 4 July 2025, which is the termination date recorded in the tenant’s notice. The landlord is entitled to possession of the premises following the termination of the tenancy. It is less than 90 days since the tenancy terminated on 4 July 2025. Therefore, the landlord’s claim for an order for possession is granted with immediate effect.

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

The law

A tenant must pay rent as and when it is due and payable under the tenancy agreement. 1
Where a tenant remains in occupation of the premises after the tenancy has terminated or has been terminated, the tenant must continue to pay rent as if the tenancy were still subsisting, until such a time as the tenant ceases to occupy the premises. 2 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(a). 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 60(1). Analysis
The tenant accepts that they continued to live in the premises until 26 July 2025 when they began a new tenancy at a different address. At the hearing on 20 August 2025, the tenant gave evidence that even though they ceased living in the premises on 26 July 2025, they continued to store belongings in the premises after this date. The tenant said this was because they had not been given approval to hire a skip bin.
At the hearing on 20 August 2025, I asked the tenant if they would agree to an order for possession being made in favour of the landlord immediately. This was not a claim the landlord filed with their original application however, the landlord asked me to consider it at the hearing. I could only do this with the tenant’s consent. The tenant declined to give their consent, advising that they had belongings stored in the premises and wanted a further opportunity to remove them.
By the date of the second hearing on 27 August 2025, the tenant had still not returned the keys to the landlord. The tenant claims this is because the landlord never asked for the keys to be returned however, the landlord submitted a copy of a text message sent to the tenant on 11 July 2025 enquiring about the keys, as well as an email sent on 17 July 2025 asking for the keys to be returned.
The tenant may have stopped living in the premises on 26 July 2025 however, they continued to store their belongings inside the premises until at least 20 August 2025 and have still not returned the keys to the landlord, despite the landlord’s requests made on 11 and 17 July 2025. In these circumstances, I find the tenant continued to occupy the premises until 27 August 2025, which is the date of the order for possession.
The landlord submitted a rent summary, which records rent arrears as being $12,187.68 up to 27 August 2025.
The tenant claims the landlord’s rent summary is inaccurate. The tenant was provided an opportunity to submit supporting evidence during the hearing. The tenant claims they have their own rent summary, which is different to the landlord’s. No evidence was received during the hearing.
The tenant claims they have not had enough time to submit any evidence in response to the landlord’s claim. I disagree. The notice of hearing and landlord’s application were sent to the tenant on 3 July 2025. The notice of hearing and landlord’s application both refer to the landlord’s claim for rent arrears. The first page of the notice of hearing states: If either party wishes to provide any further information to be considered at the hearing it should be emailed to the Tribunal immediately at the address below. Each party must also provide, by email to the other party, a copy of any additional information provided to the Tribunal. Contact email address: remote.tenancy@justice.govt.nz Last date for filing information: No later than 72 hours before the hearing date
The tenant has known about the landlord’s claim for rent arrears since 3 July 2025. They have had ample opportunity to prepare and submit any evidence countering the landlord’s claim. The notice of hearing clearly states where any evidence could have been sent. No evidence has been received from the tenant.
I accept the landlord’s rent summary as accurate and on the balance of probabilities, I find the tenant owes $12,187.68 in rent arrears up to 27 August 2025.

Has the landlord acted reasonably to mitigate their loss?

The law

Where a tenant fails to pay rent as and when it is due and payable under the tenancy agreement, section 49 RTA requires the landlord to take all reasonable steps to limit the loss arising from the tenant’s breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.
In Huang v Ashworth [2024] NZDC 15726, the District Court discussed a landlord’s duty to mitigate their loss in the context of rent arrears and held: [8] ...[W]here the tenant fails to pay rent owing, there is an obligation on the landlord to mitigate the loss. This can be achieved by not allowing the arrears to continue to accrue, instead ending the tenancy and reletting the premises thereby preventing ongoing loss. ... [11] Of relevance is s 55(1)(a) of the Act, which contains the power for a landlord to end a tenancy where rent is more than 21 days in arrears...
The District Court held that the test of what is required by a landlord to mitigate their loss is a factual one that requires the Court or Tribunal to consider: (a) whether the landlord took all reasonable steps to mitigate its loss; and (b) more particularly, whether it acted reasonably having regard to all the circumstances of the case. Analysis
The landlord filed their application with the Tribunal on 15 April 2025. According to the landlord’s rent summary, rent arrears were $2,923.39 (22 days) on this date.
Despite the fact that the tenant was more than 21 days in arrears on the date the landlord filed their application, the landlord did not apply to end the tenancy. The only application made by the landlord was for rent arrears.
Applications for termination receive higher priority in terms of scheduling than applications for rent arrears. Because the landlord’s application was only for rent arrears, a hearing was not scheduled until 20 August 2025.
Between 15 April 2025 and 20 August 2025, the tenant sent the landlord a notice ending the tenancy, with the last date of the tenancy recorded as being 4 July 2025. The tenant did not vacate the premises on this date and rent arrears continued to increase.
Notwithstanding this changing landscape, the landlord never contacted the Tribunal to request to amend their application to include a claim for termination or possession, nor did they file a new application for these matters. The landlord gave evidence this was because they believed they would be allowed to apply for termination or possession at the hearing because the rent arrears were very high. By the date of the first hearing on 20 August 2025, rent arrears were $12,366.25.
The Tribunal is required to give to each party to the dispute reasonable notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing to be held in respect of the application. 3 It does this by sending the parties a notice of hearing listing the claims raised in the application. In this case, the only matters raised in the landlord’s application are rent arrears and a refund of the bond. No request was made by the landlord to amend their application to include a claim for termination or possession. For these reasons, the landlord’s application was not given priority and the Tribunal advised the tenant that the claims to be considered at the hearing would be rent arrears and a refund of the bond.
The Tribunal will only allow an applicant to orally amend their application at the hearing to include additional claims in very rare circumstances. The landlord’s belief that they would simply be allowed to amend their application to include a claim for termination or possession is incorrect and unfounded.
Despite the fact that rent arrears were more than 21 days on the date the landlord filed their application, the landlord only applied for an order for rent arrears, not termination. When rent arrears continued to increase at an alarming rate and the tenant did not vacate the premises on 4 July 2025, the landlord did 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 91(1). not contact the Tribunal, amend their application or file a new application. The landlord did nothing, except wait for the hearing on 20 August 2025.
On the balance of probabilities, I find the landlord did not act reasonably to mitigate their loss and there needs to be an adjustment to the level of rent arrears as a result. In Huang v Ashworth, the District Court reduced the rent arrears by one third to reflect the landlord’s failure to mitigate their loss. I adopt the same approach in this case.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is granted for $9,140.76. Filing fee
Because The Worx Property Management Limited - As Agent For Kajol Enterprise Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5237452 — net $5,567.76 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 27 August 2025 (less failure to mitigate loss	$9,140.76	Rent arrears to 27 August 2025 (less failure to mitigate loss
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$5,567.76
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$5,567.76

Order

The Worx Property Management Limited - As Agent For Kajol Enterprise Limited is granted possession of the premises at 52 Jellicoe Avenue, Tuakau, Tuakau 2121 immediately.
Debbie Li must pay The Worx Property Management Limited - As Agent For Kajol Enterprise Limited $5,567.76 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,600.00 (6025548-003) to The Worx Property Management Limited - As Agent For Kajol Enterprise Limited immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, which took place over two days on 20 August 2025 and 27 August 2025.
The tenancy began on 21 July 2023. The landlord filed their application with the Tribunal on 15 April 2025 seeking an order for rent arrears. On 12 June 2025, the tenant sent the landlord a notice ending the tenancy. The last day of the tenancy recorded in the notice is 4 July 2025. The landlord claims the tenant did not vacate the premises on this date and has yet to return the keys. The landlord seeks an order for possession, as well as rent arrears up to 27 August 2025. The issues I must determine are: a. To what standard must the landlord prove their claim? b. Should an order for possession be made in favour of the landlord? c. How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears? d. Has the landlord acted reasonably to mitigate their loss?

To what standard must the landlord prove their claim?

As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they 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 Katipo 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 of 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 at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely.

Should an order for possession be made in favour of the landlord?

The law

Section 51(2A) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states that a tenant may terminate a periodic tenancy in any case by giving at least 21 days’ notice.
Section 64(1) and (2) RTA states that the Tribunal must make an order granting possession of the premises to any person entitled to possession following the termination of the tenancy, unless more than 90 days have passed since the termination date. Analysis
The tenancy was a periodic tenancy. On 12 June 2025, the tenant sent the landlord a notice ending the tenancy. The end date recorded in the notice is 4 July 2025, which is more than 21 days after the notice was sent to the landlord.
The landlord gave evidence the notice was never revoked by the tenant. The tenant accepts this was the case. There is a disagreement between the parties regarding how long the tenant continued to live in the premises or store their personal belongings after 4 July 2025.
I find the tenancy terminated on 4 July 2025, which is the termination date recorded in the tenant’s notice. The landlord is entitled to possession of the premises following the termination of the tenancy. It is less than 90 days since the tenancy terminated on 4 July 2025. Therefore, the landlord’s claim for an order for possession is granted with immediate effect.

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

The law

A tenant must pay rent as and when it is due and payable under the tenancy agreement. 1
Where a tenant remains in occupation of the premises after the tenancy has terminated or has been terminated, the tenant must continue to pay rent as if the tenancy were still subsisting, until such a time as the tenant ceases to occupy the premises. 2 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 40(1)(a). 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 60(1). Analysis
The tenant accepts that they continued to live in the premises until 26 July 2025 when they began a new tenancy at a different address. At the hearing on 20 August 2025, the tenant gave evidence that even though they ceased living in the premises on 26 July 2025, they continued to store belongings in the premises after this date. The tenant said this was because they had not been given approval to hire a skip bin.
At the hearing on 20 August 2025, I asked the tenant if they would agree to an order for possession being made in favour of the landlord immediately. This was not a claim the landlord filed with their original application however, the landlord asked me to consider it at the hearing. I could only do this with the tenant’s consent. The tenant declined to give their consent, advising that they had belongings stored in the premises and wanted a further opportunity to remove them.
By the date of the second hearing on 27 August 2025, the tenant had still not returned the keys to the landlord. The tenant claims this is because the landlord never asked for the keys to be returned however, the landlord submitted a copy of a text message sent to the tenant on 11 July 2025 enquiring about the keys, as well as an email sent on 17 July 2025 asking for the keys to be returned.
The tenant may have stopped living in the premises on 26 July 2025 however, they continued to store their belongings inside the premises until at least 20 August 2025 and have still not returned the keys to the landlord, despite the landlord’s requests made on 11 and 17 July 2025. In these circumstances, I find the tenant continued to occupy the premises until 27 August 2025, which is the date of the order for possession.
The landlord submitted a rent summary, which records rent arrears as being $12,187.68 up to 27 August 2025.
The tenant claims the landlord’s rent summary is inaccurate. The tenant was provided an opportunity to submit supporting evidence during the hearing. The tenant claims they have their own rent summary, which is different to the landlord’s. No evidence was received during the hearing.
The tenant claims they have not had enough time to submit any evidence in response to the landlord’s claim. I disagree. The notice of hearing and landlord’s application were sent to the tenant on 3 July 2025. The notice of hearing and landlord’s application both refer to the landlord’s claim for rent arrears. The first page of the notice of hearing states: If either party wishes to provide any further information to be considered at the hearing it should be emailed to the Tribunal immediately at the address below. Each party must also provide, by email to the other party, a copy of any additional information provided to the Tribunal. Contact email address: remote.tenancy@justice.govt.nz Last date for filing information: No later than 72 hours before the hearing date
The tenant has known about the landlord’s claim for rent arrears since 3 July 2025. They have had ample opportunity to prepare and submit any evidence countering the landlord’s claim. The notice of hearing clearly states where any evidence could have been sent. No evidence has been received from the tenant.
I accept the landlord’s rent summary as accurate and on the balance of probabilities, I find the tenant owes $12,187.68 in rent arrears up to 27 August 2025.

Has the landlord acted reasonably to mitigate their loss?

The law

Where a tenant fails to pay rent as and when it is due and payable under the tenancy agreement, section 49 RTA requires the landlord to take all reasonable steps to limit the loss arising from the tenant’s breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.
In Huang v Ashworth [2024] NZDC 15726, the District Court discussed a landlord’s duty to mitigate their loss in the context of rent arrears and held: [8] ...[W]here the tenant fails to pay rent owing, there is an obligation on the landlord to mitigate the loss. This can be achieved by not allowing the arrears to continue to accrue, instead ending the tenancy and reletting the premises thereby preventing ongoing loss. ... [11] Of relevance is s 55(1)(a) of the Act, which contains the power for a landlord to end a tenancy where rent is more than 21 days in arrears...
The District Court held that the test of what is required by a landlord to mitigate their loss is a factual one that requires the Court or Tribunal to consider: (a) whether the landlord took all reasonable steps to mitigate its loss; and (b) more particularly, whether it acted reasonably having regard to all the circumstances of the case. Analysis
The landlord filed their application with the Tribunal on 15 April 2025. According to the landlord’s rent summary, rent arrears were $2,923.39 (22 days) on this date.
Despite the fact that the tenant was more than 21 days in arrears on the date the landlord filed their application, the landlord did not apply to end the tenancy. The only application made by the landlord was for rent arrears.
Applications for termination receive higher priority in terms of scheduling than applications for rent arrears. Because the landlord’s application was only for rent arrears, a hearing was not scheduled until 20 August 2025.
Between 15 April 2025 and 20 August 2025, the tenant sent the landlord a notice ending the tenancy, with the last date of the tenancy recorded as being 4 July 2025. The tenant did not vacate the premises on this date and rent arrears continued to increase.
Notwithstanding this changing landscape, the landlord never contacted the Tribunal to request to amend their application to include a claim for termination or possession, nor did they file a new application for these matters. The landlord gave evidence this was because they believed they would be allowed to apply for termination or possession at the hearing because the rent arrears were very high. By the date of the first hearing on 20 August 2025, rent arrears were $12,366.25.
The Tribunal is required to give to each party to the dispute reasonable notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing to be held in respect of the application. 3 It does this by sending the parties a notice of hearing listing the claims raised in the application. In this case, the only matters raised in the landlord’s application are rent arrears and a refund of the bond. No request was made by the landlord to amend their application to include a claim for termination or possession. For these reasons, the landlord’s application was not given priority and the Tribunal advised the tenant that the claims to be considered at the hearing would be rent arrears and a refund of the bond.
The Tribunal will only allow an applicant to orally amend their application at the hearing to include additional claims in very rare circumstances. The landlord’s belief that they would simply be allowed to amend their application to include a claim for termination or possession is incorrect and unfounded.
Despite the fact that rent arrears were more than 21 days on the date the landlord filed their application, the landlord only applied for an order for rent arrears, not termination. When rent arrears continued to increase at an alarming rate and the tenant did not vacate the premises on 4 July 2025, the landlord did 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 91(1). not contact the Tribunal, amend their application or file a new application. The landlord did nothing, except wait for the hearing on 20 August 2025.
On the balance of probabilities, I find the landlord did not act reasonably to mitigate their loss and there needs to be an adjustment to the level of rent arrears as a result. In Huang v Ashworth, the District Court reduced the rent arrears by one third to reflect the landlord’s failure to mitigate their loss. I adopt the same approach in this case.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is granted for $9,140.76. Filing fee
Because The Worx Property Management Limited - As Agent For Kajol Enterprise Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5237452 — Rent arrears at 52 Jellicoe Avenue, Tuakau, Tuakau 2121

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5237452 — Rent arrears at 52 Jellicoe Avenue, Tuakau, Tuakau 2121

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

To what standard must the landlord prove their claim?

Should an order for possession be made in favour of the landlord?

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

Has the landlord acted reasonably to mitigate their loss?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

To what standard must the landlord prove their claim?

Should an order for possession be made in favour of the landlord?

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

Has the landlord acted reasonably to mitigate their loss?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions