What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5243452 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 5243452?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $21,820.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $303.46 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5243452?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5243452?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11954968-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5243452 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 5243452?

Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $21,820.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $303.46 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5243452?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5243452?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11954968-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5243452 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5243452 — net $19,550.46 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 11 June 2025	$21,820.00	Rent arrears to 11 June 2025
Water rates: to 27 May 2025	$303.46	22. The tenants also accepted they owe the landlord $303.46 in water rates arrears, to 27 May 2025, which I award to the landlords.
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$19,550.46
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$19,550.46

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 tenancy of Amy Buttery and Jason Whear at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord], at 5:00pm on Monday 9 June 2025.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord] immediately.
Amy Buttery and Jason Whear must pay [The landlord] $19,550.46 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
Rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. The tenancy is terminated. See section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant 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.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any 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. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Section 55(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) confirms that the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that the rent was, at the date on which the application was filed, at least 21 days in arrears; unless it is satisfied that the breach has been remedied (where it is capable of remedy), the landlord has been compensated for any loss arising from the breach, and it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of a kind to which this section applies.
The tenants’ rent was more than 21 days in arrears when the landlord made its application to the Tribunal on 27 April 2025, requesting termination of the tenancy and possession of the premise.
The landlord issued the tenants with two 14-day notices. The first was on 19 May 2024 and the second was on 21 April 2025. The rent arrears were not paid at the end of these 14-day notice periods. In fact, as of today the rent was in arrears of $21,820.00.
The tenancy is terminated, and possession granted back to the landlord as at 5pm today.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The landlord became concerned that the premise had been abandoned on 6 June 2025 when a neighbour reported the premise, including garage, had been left unsecured with rubbish piling up around the section for days. Another neighbour confirmed the tenants had moved out on 31 May 2025 and relocated to a new residence. A further neighbour to the other side of the property confirmed he had seen the tenants packing up over the weekend and was told by the tenants they had a new home in the Macarua Farm area.
When the neighbour informed the landlord that the house was not secured, she says she went to the premise to see if the windows and doors were secured, for insurance purposes. She confirmed the front door was unlocked as were the two garages and she could see that some of the chattels were clearly missing. The tenants did not respond to her attempts to communicate with them.
The tenants confirmed they have moved their personal belongings out of the premise, because they knew that at the hearing today that the tenancy would be terminated. Further, they say they were intending to go back this week to clean the property and repair what damages they could. They say they are surprised that the landlord has been inside the house without notifying them and confirmed they left the front door locked and that one garage was closed, and one garage had a door that did not close and hung off on bungy chords. They say this garage door has been broken and unable to be secured during the entire tenancy.
The tenants say they went back to the property with a trailer to clean some rubbish on Kings Birthday Monday, around lunch time, but acknowledge that some rubbish is still left behind.
The landlord provided rent records, bank records and water rates invoices which prove the amounts owing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenants disputed the rent arrears sought, but have not produced rent records that prove the landlord’s rent records are inaccurate or incorrect.
The landlord’s bank records, water rates summary and rent summary have been reconciled and I am satisfied that all payments made by the tenants have been accurately recorded in the landlord’s business records. I award the landlord rent arrears of $21,820.00, up to 11 June 2025. This date recognises although the tenancy ends on 9 June 2025, the landlord cannot, pursuant to section 138(1)(a) of the District Court Act 2016, enforce the eviction order for 48 hours, and is unlikely to be able to take possession of the premise until Wednesday 12 June 2025. This gives the tenants time to move any belongings out of the premise that they want to retain.
The tenants also accepted they owe the landlord $303.46 in water rates arrears, to 27 May 2025, which I award to the landlords.

OTHER ORDERS

Leave to make further claims against the tenants

The landlord has confirmed that she has made an insurance claim for some of the damages she claims the tenants caused either intentionally or through careless acts or omissions during the tenancy.
The landlord states a formal loss adjustment assessment is ongoing and the insurer has so far documented over 55 separate instances of damage, many of which are suspected to be intentional or fall outside the category of fair wear and tear.
The landlord has requested the Tribunal reserve leave for a supplementary claim to allow for submission of further costs including insurance excess and any further repairs not covered by the policy, which the Tribunal finds remains the tenants’ legal responsibility.
The Henderson v Henderson rule, confirms that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with matters again that have been the subject of a previous hearing or that could have been addressed at the previous hearing and was not because the party did not raise it. This Rule arises from a decision issued long ago, in 1843. That Judgment, Henderson v Henderson (1843) 2 HARE 100, states in part: In trying this question I believe I state the Rule of Court correctly when I say that, where a given matter becomes the subject of litigation in, and of adjudication by, a court of competent jurisdiction, the Court requires the parties to that litigation to bring forward their whole case and will not (except under special circumstances) permit the same parties to open the same subject of litigation in respect of matters which ought to have been brought forward as part of the subject in contest, but which was not brought forward, only because they have from negligence, inadvertence of even accident omitted part of their case. The plea of res judicata applies, except in some cases, not only to the points upon which the court was actually required by the parties to form an opinion and pronounce a judgment, but their every point which properly belonged to the subject of the litigation, and which the parties, exercising reasonable diligence, might have brought forward at the time.
I grant leave to the landlord to bring her damages claims before the Tribunal in a separate application and for any costs incurred after the date of today’s hearing. Reimbursement of filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with this claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
The landlord applies for non-publication of her name and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has substantially succeeded in her proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5243452 — net $19,550.46 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 11 June 2025	$21,820.00	Rent arrears to 11 June 2025
Water rates: to 27 May 2025	$303.46	22. The tenants also accepted they owe the landlord $303.46 in water rates arrears, to 27 May 2025, which I award to the landlords.
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$19,550.46
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$19,550.46

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 tenancy of Amy Buttery and Jason Whear at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord], at 5:00pm on Monday 9 June 2025.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord] immediately.
Amy Buttery and Jason Whear must pay [The landlord] $19,550.46 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
Rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. The tenancy is terminated. See section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant 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.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any 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. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed. LANDLORD’S CLAIMS

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Section 55(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) confirms that the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that the rent was, at the date on which the application was filed, at least 21 days in arrears; unless it is satisfied that the breach has been remedied (where it is capable of remedy), the landlord has been compensated for any loss arising from the breach, and it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of a kind to which this section applies.
The tenants’ rent was more than 21 days in arrears when the landlord made its application to the Tribunal on 27 April 2025, requesting termination of the tenancy and possession of the premise.
The landlord issued the tenants with two 14-day notices. The first was on 19 May 2024 and the second was on 21 April 2025. The rent arrears were not paid at the end of these 14-day notice periods. In fact, as of today the rent was in arrears of $21,820.00.
The tenancy is terminated, and possession granted back to the landlord as at 5pm today.

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

The landlord became concerned that the premise had been abandoned on 6 June 2025 when a neighbour reported the premise, including garage, had been left unsecured with rubbish piling up around the section for days. Another neighbour confirmed the tenants had moved out on 31 May 2025 and relocated to a new residence. A further neighbour to the other side of the property confirmed he had seen the tenants packing up over the weekend and was told by the tenants they had a new home in the Macarua Farm area.
When the neighbour informed the landlord that the house was not secured, she says she went to the premise to see if the windows and doors were secured, for insurance purposes. She confirmed the front door was unlocked as were the two garages and she could see that some of the chattels were clearly missing. The tenants did not respond to her attempts to communicate with them.
The tenants confirmed they have moved their personal belongings out of the premise, because they knew that at the hearing today that the tenancy would be terminated. Further, they say they were intending to go back this week to clean the property and repair what damages they could. They say they are surprised that the landlord has been inside the house without notifying them and confirmed they left the front door locked and that one garage was closed, and one garage had a door that did not close and hung off on bungy chords. They say this garage door has been broken and unable to be secured during the entire tenancy.
The tenants say they went back to the property with a trailer to clean some rubbish on Kings Birthday Monday, around lunch time, but acknowledge that some rubbish is still left behind.
The landlord provided rent records, bank records and water rates invoices which prove the amounts owing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenants disputed the rent arrears sought, but have not produced rent records that prove the landlord’s rent records are inaccurate or incorrect.
The landlord’s bank records, water rates summary and rent summary have been reconciled and I am satisfied that all payments made by the tenants have been accurately recorded in the landlord’s business records. I award the landlord rent arrears of $21,820.00, up to 11 June 2025. This date recognises although the tenancy ends on 9 June 2025, the landlord cannot, pursuant to section 138(1)(a) of the District Court Act 2016, enforce the eviction order for 48 hours, and is unlikely to be able to take possession of the premise until Wednesday 12 June 2025. This gives the tenants time to move any belongings out of the premise that they want to retain.
The tenants also accepted they owe the landlord $303.46 in water rates arrears, to 27 May 2025, which I award to the landlords.

OTHER ORDERS

Leave to make further claims against the tenants

The landlord has confirmed that she has made an insurance claim for some of the damages she claims the tenants caused either intentionally or through careless acts or omissions during the tenancy.
The landlord states a formal loss adjustment assessment is ongoing and the insurer has so far documented over 55 separate instances of damage, many of which are suspected to be intentional or fall outside the category of fair wear and tear.
The landlord has requested the Tribunal reserve leave for a supplementary claim to allow for submission of further costs including insurance excess and any further repairs not covered by the policy, which the Tribunal finds remains the tenants’ legal responsibility.
The Henderson v Henderson rule, confirms that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with matters again that have been the subject of a previous hearing or that could have been addressed at the previous hearing and was not because the party did not raise it. This Rule arises from a decision issued long ago, in 1843. That Judgment, Henderson v Henderson (1843) 2 HARE 100, states in part: In trying this question I believe I state the Rule of Court correctly when I say that, where a given matter becomes the subject of litigation in, and of adjudication by, a court of competent jurisdiction, the Court requires the parties to that litigation to bring forward their whole case and will not (except under special circumstances) permit the same parties to open the same subject of litigation in respect of matters which ought to have been brought forward as part of the subject in contest, but which was not brought forward, only because they have from negligence, inadvertence of even accident omitted part of their case. The plea of res judicata applies, except in some cases, not only to the points upon which the court was actually required by the parties to form an opinion and pronounce a judgment, but their every point which properly belonged to the subject of the litigation, and which the parties, exercising reasonable diligence, might have brought forward at the time.
I grant leave to the landlord to bring her damages claims before the Tribunal in a separate application and for any costs incurred after the date of today’s hearing. Reimbursement of filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with this claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression
The landlord applies for non-publication of her name and identifying details.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has substantially succeeded in her proceedings. I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the landlord’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Non-publication is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5243452 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5243452 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Should the tenancy be terminated?

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

OTHER ORDERS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Should the tenancy be terminated?

How much is owed for rent and water rates?

OTHER ORDERS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions