What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5245322 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] and

How much money was awarded in case 5245322?

Compensation: alternative accommodat…: $1,800.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5245322?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5245322?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12552325-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5245322 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] and

How much money was awarded in case 5245322?

Compensation: alternative accommodat…: $1,800.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5245322?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5245322?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12552325-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

56 Endsleigh Drive, Havelock North, Havelock North 4172 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5245322 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5245322 — net $7,827.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: alternative accommodation	$1,800.00	alternative accommodation
Filing Fee	$27.00	Filing Fee
Exemplary damages: fail to provide agreement	$750.00	fail to provide agreement
Exemplary damages: seizing goods	$2,000.00	seizing goods
Exemplary damages: changing locks	$750.00	changing locks
Exemplary damages: unlawful entry	$1,000.00	unlawful entry
Exemplary damages: harassment	$1,500.00	harassment
Net award	$7,827.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$7,827.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5245322 — net $7,827.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation: alternative accommodation	$1,800.00	alternative accommodation
Filing Fee	$27.00	Filing Fee
Exemplary damages: fail to provide agreement	$750.00	fail to provide agreement
Exemplary damages: seizing goods	$2,000.00	seizing goods
Exemplary damages: changing locks	$750.00	changing locks
Exemplary damages: unlawful entry	$1,000.00	unlawful entry
Exemplary damages: harassment	$1,500.00	harassment
Net award	$7,827.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$7,827.00

Order

[The landlord/s] and [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $7,827.00 immediately, as follows:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Piha appeared for the landlords with counsel. Mr Weiss did not attend.
The background to the parties’ agreement is set out in the Tribunal’s decision dated 12 June 2025 (“June Order”). That Order determined that the agreement was a residential tenancy, subject to the Residential Tenancies Act (“RTA”).
To determine the substantive claims, the Tribunal needs to consider the circumstances relevant to the terms of their agreement, the end of the agreement and its aftermath. What were the relevant terms of the parties’ agreement?
In the June Order the Tribunal found (para 52), “There was no uncertainty about the key terms of the agreement, that is the parties, the premises and the expectations. Both parties knew that this was a short term arrangement until settlement took place.”
The landlords had sold the property under an agreement for sale and purchase dated 21 November 2024. The sale agreement provided for settlement with vacant possession “Friday 30 th May 2025 or earlier by mutual agreement”.
The tenants knew about the sale. The draft agreement drawn by Mr Soroka at Ms Piha’s request: a. is titled “house sitting agreement”; and b. provides for an end date of 24 May 2025.
There is nothing in the June Order, the draft agreement or otherwise in the evidence, to suggest that there were two separate agreements in place entitling Ms Reid and Mr Soroka to each, separately, claim the maximum redress for any breaches by the landlord. They were joint tenants.
It is fair to infer from Mr Soroka’s draft agreement that like the landlords, the tenants were unaware at the time, that their house sitting arrangement fell within the provisions of the RTA.
It is also fair to infer from the draft that the tenants were aware and had agreed, that the arrangement could not extend beyond 24 May, so the landlords could meet their settlement obligations.
The provisions of the RTA apply despite agreement to the contrary. A landlord can waive rights or powers given by the RTA. A tenant cannot 1 .
Terms inconsistent with the RTA can be given effect where, “.. the Tribunal is satisfied that, having regard to the nature of the tenancy, the provisions of the tenancy agreement, the interests of the parties, and all other relevant circumstances of the case, the inconsistency, exclusion, modification, or restriction should be permitted.” 2
A fixed term tenancy of more than 90 days becomes a periodic tenancy from the end of the fixed term, unless appropriate notice is given to the contrary 3 . 1 S.11 RTA 2 S.11(1) RTA
Here, both parties knew that the right of occupation was only until settlement of the sale and that the landlords’ obligations under the sale contract prevented them giving the tenants occupation beyond 24 May. In those circumstances, I find that their agreement should be given effect, despite being inconsistent with the RTA.
The consequence is that the agreement did not become a periodic tenancy from 24 May. That is the latest date to which the tenants could have had a right of occupation.
The next question to consider is whether the agreement included a term that the arrangement could be ended earlier by notice. Ms Piha asserts an agreement that she was entitled to require the tenants to leave by giving 2 days’ notice. The tenants say they were entitled to stay at least until 24 May.
The tenants’ position is inconsistent with how Mr Soroka described his understanding of the arrangement to mutual acquaintance Rob Holden in an e- mail to him on 20 April 2025. In that e-mail he said the arrangement was that he and Ms Reid could stay living in the premises until 24 May or a week before settlement. That appears to confirm an understanding that while the agreement was to end on 24 May, a week prior to the settlement date of 30 May, if settlement was brought forward, Mr Soroka and Ms Reid would vacate a week before that earlier settlement date.
Whether the agreed notice period to vacate for earlier settlement was 2 days or a week or the two weeks initially given by Ms Piha, none is consistent with the notice periods required by s.51 RTA to end a tenancy. The question again is whether, in the circumstances of this case, a contrary term should be given effect.
My finding is that it shouldn’t. The landlords had obligations to their purchasers under the sale agreement. Having agreed to a tenancy of the premises, they also had obligations to the tenants.
The sale agreement does not enable the purchasers to require settlement before 30 May. Settlement could happen before then only if mutually agreed. There is no evidence of any binding obligation on the landlords to settle before 30 May.
Allowing a tenancy to be ended on such short notice is fundamentally inconsistent with a tenant’s entitlements under the RTA. A term that the tenancy didn’t become a periodic tenancy from 24 May, was necessary to allow the landlords to meet the known sale obligations. A term that the tenants should have to vacate on very short notice wasn’t. It meant the landlords couldn’t agree to an earlier settlement date. 3 S.60A RTA
I am not persuaded that such a term should be given effect and find that the tenants were entitled to occupation of the premises until 24 May 2025.

What happened at the end of the tenancy?

Ms Piha’s evidence is that she found out from Ms Reid on 12 April, that the sales agent had called Ms Reid to say that that the purchasers had sold their farm and wanted to bring the settlement date forward.
Ms Piha txt Ms Reid, “... I desperately need to have your attention: I spoke to Connie and Ellen [sales agents] and need you to confirm that you and Glenn and all your belongings will be out of my house by May 7th leaving the house just like you found it.....the inspection is no[w] set for May 8th takeover on May 12th can you confirm that now?”
In the absence of that confirmation, Ms Piha sent follow up texts asking for a response. On 18 April Mr Soroka txt Ms Piha asking that she stop communicating with Ms Reid, and asserting, “......as tenants we have a right to quiet enjoyment of the property until the agreed end date, which is the 24 May.”
Ms Piha responded, “....that is not correct, our agreement was always that you would be ready to leave before if necessary and in two days! You knew the new owners could ask for the house beforehand. You need to be out by the 7th latest”
On 25 April Mr. Weiss intervened with an e-mail to the tenants as follows, “Glenn, the locks at 56 Endsleigh have been changed and the police is on standby, please don't try to enter the property without our agreement and please don't be abusive to my son Alan... please inform when the moving company will fetch your stuff which should not be later than next Monday April
If not done by then there is a forced eviction on Tuesday 29 April 9:00 am at your cost”
On 28 April Ms Piha emailed the tenants, “Final Notice! Removal of your belongings from 56 Endsleigh Drive - This letter serves as your official written notice that you are required to collect all of your belongings from the property located at 56 Endsleigh Dr. Havelock North by no later than 12:00pm on 29 April 2025. Should you fail to do so, your belongings will be removed and disposed of without further notice... please be advised that the police have been notified of this matter. Attached is a copy of the report for your record..... failure to comply with this request will result in the disposal of your items as indicated.”
On 29 April Ms Piha issued a trespass notice against Mr Soroka.
The tenants were able to enter the property on 29 April by following the landlords’ son inside. The police were called and the tenants were given a key to the changed locks.
On 1 May Mr Soroka e-mailed the landlords disputing the trespass notice, quoting and attaching the provisions of the RTA he believed to be relevant 4 and making it clear that he did not consent to the tenant’s goods being removed from the property. Mr Soroka asserted an entitlement to 42 days’ notice on the grounds that it was a periodic tenancy.
On 4 May Mr Soroka e-mailed “....Further to receiving a phone call this morning from your son Alan asking me if I wanted to remove any of my possessions from 56 Endsleigh Dr I advise again that I do not consent to you touching any of our property. You have no lawful authority to enter the property or touch any of our possessions. Please see Police guidelines on trespass. We are the lawful occupiers, not you. You may be the owner of the property but you are NOT the lawful occupier. Your trespass notice is invalid and has not lawful authority. You cannot rely on this to touch any of our property.”
On 7 May 2025 the landlords had Gunn Transport remove the tenants’ belongings from the property. Initially they were taken to Kennards’ Storage. The tenants were told by the landlord’s lawyer that they could be collected from there by paying all storage costs.
After being caught up in the parties’ dispute, Kennards declined to continue storing the goods. They were then uplifted by Gunn Transport and remained stored in one of that company’s removal trucks. Again the tenants were told that they could uplift their belongings after paying all the storage costs.
The tenants’ belongings have now been returned to them in terms of the Tribunal’s interim Order of 3 July 2025. The Claims
The issues for the Tribunal to determine were set out in the Tribunal’s Order dated 3 July 2025 as follows: Exemplary Damages a) s. 13(4) - failure to provide signed tenancy agreement. b) s.33(2) - seizing tenants’ goods. c) s.38.(3) - Interference of privacy of tenancy (harassment). d) s.46(3) - Landlord changing locks without consent e) s.48(4)(a) - Unlawful entry by Landlord f) s.54(6) - Landlord giving retaliatory notice of termination g) s.60AA- Landlord acting to unlawfully terminate tenancy 4 Including s.33 RTA – “Tenant’s goods not to be seized” Compensation h) Accommodation x 42 days from 4 May at $450.00 per week i) general damages for emotional stress and harm humiliation, loss of dignity - $12,000.00.
Before addressing the individual claims it is helpful to set out the principles the Tribunal must apply in determining claims for redress.
These are the tenants’ claims. They must bring evidence to prove the facts on which their claims are based. Proof is required on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not).
Where a party breaches their obligations under the agreement or the RTA causing the other party loss, compensation for that loss can be considered. That loss might be financial or for tenants it might be through a reduction in the amenity or their use and enjoyment of the premises.
Where a breach causes harm but of nature that can't be a quantified in monetary terms, general damages may be awarded, not to compensate for a quantifiable loss but to compensate for pain or suffering or emotional distress 5 .
Where a party’s breach constitutes an unlawful act under the RTA, the Tribunal must consider whether the breach was committed intentionally. If it was, then the Tribunal needs to consider the party’s intention in committing the unlawful act, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party and the public interest in deciding whether it would be just to make an award of exemplary damages, up to the maximum specified 6 .
The purpose of exemplary damages is not to compensate the other party but to punish the unlawful conduct.
Finally I note that a party who claims the other party has breached their obligations must take reasonable steps to mitigate the consequences of that breach. 7 Did the landlord failed to provide a signed tenancy agreement and if so should exemplary damages be awarded?
As noted in the 3 July Order there is no dispute that the landlord failed to provide a written agreement. 5 See in Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 6 S.109(3) RTA 7 S.49 RTA
That failure breached a series of core landlord obligations: a. to provide a written agreement (s.13 RTA) b. to provide details about the landlord and the premises (s.13A(1) RTA) c. to provide insulation, Healthy Homes compliance and insurance statements (ss 13A(1A), (1CA), (2))
Each of those breaches is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $750.00 may be awarded.
The landlord says the breaches were not intentional.
In this context it is the intent of the act itself ie. not providing a written agreement and the required details, which is relevant. A mistaken belief that an agreement was not required, or ignorance of the law, does not make the act unintentional 8 .
In assessing whether it would be just to make an award of exemplary damages, those factors do have relevance.
It was the mistaken belief, shared by both parties, that theirs was an arrangement not covered by the RTA that underpinned the failure to properly document it. The landlord nevertheless had a statutory responsibility to properly record the terms of such an arrangement.
The failure to do so was fundamental in fuelling the uncertainly, leading to unilateral actions, position taking and use of force that characterised the end of the tenancy.
I also take into account that Ms Piha requested that the tenants produce the agreement for signing rather than meeting that responsibility herself.
It also seems to me relevant that Ms Piha was specifically advised against entering into this kind of arrangement, which should have prompted her to be careful to properly record its terms.
Although several unlawful acts have been committed, they reflect one fundamental failure by the landlord to properly document the agreement. The scheme of the RTA is that a party should not suffer more than one penalty for essentially the same conduct 9 .
Weighing those considerations I find it would be just to make only one award of exemplary damages, but at the top of the scale, to reflect the importance and number of breaches committed. 8 See Rawstorne v Westside Management Ltd T/A Quinovic [ 2021] NZDC 14114 9 See ss. 109E and 137A Did the landlord seize the tenant’s goods and if so should exemplary damages be awarded?
A landlord must not seize or dispose of any of the tenant’s goods, except where they are disposed of under sections 62 to 62C of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. See section 33(1) and (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 33(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The evidence noted establishes that the landlord, without the consent of the tenants seized their goods and removed them from the premises. Counsel for the landlord submits that the goods had been abandoned and that the landlord was entitled to deal with them as prescribed by s.62, 62A and 62B.
With respect, the tenants had made it abundantly clear that they had not abandoned their goods and did not give consent for them to be removed. They had provided the landlord with the reasons for their position that the landlord was not entitled to remove them, including the relevant extracts from the RTA. The landlords had been informed quite some time before, that the tenants had filed the dispute with the Tenancy Tribunal.
Nonetheless the landlords did precisely what s.33 prohibits, by seizing and removing the tenants’ goods.
There is some mitigation in that the landlords genuinely did not believe that this arrangement was one covered by the RTA.
There is some mitigation in that I have found the tenants had agreed that they would move out a week before the settlement date if it was brought forward, but then changed their position.
There is some mitigation in that opportunities were given for the tenants to remove their goods.
It is also clear that the landlords were desperate for their sale to settle and very afraid that the tenants’ actions had/ would put that in jeopardy.
Fundamentally though I cannot interpret the evidence as showing other than that despite knowing there was a dispute about the nature of the parties’ rights and responsibilities and the reasons for the tenants’ position (upheld by the Tribunal) and despite knowing that the issues were before the Tribunal for determination though the tenants’ application, the landlords used force to get their way.
Other factors I have considered in assessing whether exemplary damages should be awarded are: a. the landlords have incurred significant cost in the transport and storage fees; b. the tenants have not taken opportunities for recovery of their belongings, increasing those costs; c. there is a clear public interest in discouraging these kinds of “vigilante” actions, however firmly the landlords believed they were in the right.
Considering those factors I find it just to make a significant award of exemplary damages which I fix at $2,000.00, 2/3 of the maximum. Did the landlord unlawfully change the locks and if so should an award of exemplary damages be made?
As noted, on 25 April 2025 Mr Weiss advised the tenants: “Glenn, the locks at 56 Endsleigh have been changed and the police is on standby, please don't try to enter the property without our agreement and please don't be abusive to my son Alan. The friendly police constable calling me earlier this year to confirm your bail address at my house is also informed that 56 Endsleigh is not your current bail address any longer. Please inform when the moving company will fetch your stuff which should not be later then next Monday, April 28 If not done by then there is a forced eviction on Tuesday 29 April, 9:00am at your cost. Regards Andreas”
A landlord must provide and maintain locks to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure. Neither the landlord nor the tenant may alter or remove any locks without the other party's consent. See section 46(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 46(3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Mr Weiss made a specific threat to change the locks. He made good on that threat and changed the locks, having no lawful grounds for doing so.
That was an unlawful act. It was intentional.
In considering whether exemplary damages should be awarded, I take into account the mitigation factors noted previously (para 60-61).
I take into account that almost immediately afterward, a key to the changed locks was given to the tenants which mitigated the effect on them
Again though, the landlords’ actions show a willingness to use force to assert their position, which there is a clear public interest in discouraging.
An award of exemplary damages should be made to reflect that. Because the effect of the unlawful act was short lived, only a modest award should be made. Did the landlords unlawfully enter the premises and if so should an award of exemplary damages be made?
A landlord may not enter the premises during the tenancy except with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. See section 48(1) and (2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 48 (4)(a) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The evidence shows the landlords entering the premises and seeking to exclude the tenant with police assistance. Ms Piha acknowledged going into the premises without prior notice and consent. Photographs have been provided by the tenants of their chairs lying on the lawn where Ms Piha had thrown them.
This is a further example of the landlords considering themselves in the right and “taking the law into their own hands”.
In assessing whether to award exemplary damages, really the same considerations apply as those noted in assessing exemplary damages for the landlords’ other unlawful acts.
Here, the landlords’ actions in throwing tenants’ property out onto the lawn is an aggravating factor.
Again a significant award of exemplary damages is justified. Did the landlords harass the tenants and if so should exemplary damages be awarded?
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The evidence shows that the landlords actively tried to force the tenants out of the premises. Without any lawful right to do so, they: a. demanded that the tenants vacate; b. immediately changed the required vacate date from 7 May to 29 April; c. changed the locks; d. issued a trespass notice; e. called the police; f. made unlawful demands on the tenants to remove their belongings; g. seized and removed the tenants’ belongings.
I find those actions to squarely fit within the definition of harassment. The landlords have committed an unlawful act. It was intentional.
I need not repeat the factors I have already identified in assessing whether exemplary damages should be awarded. The same pattern of conduct is relevant to this claim.
I take into account that some of the means used by the landlord to harass the tenants have been the subject of separate claims with exemplary damages awarded. The landlords should not suffer a double penalty, for instance by being penalised for changing the locks and also for harassing the tenants by changing the locks.
For that reason only a modest separate award of exemplary damages is made in respect of this unlawful act. Did the landlord issue a retaliatory termination notice and if so should exemplary damages be awarded?
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The evidence does not establish any motive (wholly or in part) for the landlords giving the termination notice, other than to meet an earlier settlement date for their sale.
That claim is dismissed Did the landlord terminate the tenancy unlawfully and if so should exemplary damages be awarded?
A landlord must not give a notice of termination knowing that they are not entitled, under the RTA to give it. 10
Doing so is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $6,500.00 may be awarded.
Earlier in the decision I have noted that when it comes to assessing whether a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, mistaken belief or ignorance of the law does not make an act, knowingly committed, unintentional.
Section 60AA is expressed in a different way. It does not talk about whether the termination notice was given intentionally. Rather, it requires that the landlord gave the notice, “...knowing that they are not entitled, under this Act, to give the notice...”
I have already noted my findings that the landlords, genuinely, though mistakenly, believed that the arrangement they had with the tenants was not one covered by the RTA.
That being so, it cannot be said that when they gave the termination notice they knew they were not entitled to do so under the RTA.
That claim is dismissed. Mitigation/ contributory behaviour
I have thought about whether the tenants may have contributed to the intensity of the conflict that developed.
The landlords have provided in evidence statements of support from a number of friends, family and acquaintances. Though that evidence is, with respect, of limited assistance in addressing the issues before the Tribunal, it does corroborate the landlords’ assertion that the tenants did not honour the parties original understanding.
The evidence shows it to be more likely than not that they: a. agreed to vacate a week beforehand if settlement was brought forward; b. brought a large number of possession to the property including vehicles and vehicle bodies and occupied the property in a way that was not consistent with a housesitting situation or being able to leave if required if settlement was brought forward; 10 S.60AA RTA c. caused damage and mess to the property, leading the landlords to be concerned that it would take them much longer than expected to get the property into suitable condition for settlement; d. did not take opportunities to remove their belongings when given; e. were combative with people trying to assist (albeit those people were primarily wanting to help the landlords get possession back).
While they may have been a breach of the parties’ understandings, they are not shown to have breached any legal obligation owed by Ms Reid and Mr Soroka as tenants under the RTA. They should not count against them in assessing the appropriate award of exemplary damages for the landlords’ unlawful acts, which are intended to punish those acts, not compensate the tenants.
The most consequential potential contribution to the conflict by the tenants was asserting a right to insist on 42 days’ notice, which would have made it impossible for the landlord to meet their obligation to provide vacant possession on 30 May as required by the sale agreement. That is not a position supported by this decision. However, the evidence does not show the tenants taking that stance until 1 May, after the unlawful acts being considered in this Order, were committed.

Should additional compensation be awarded?

Accommodation

I have found that: a. the tenants were entitled to occupy the property until 24 May 2025; but b. they were excluded from 29 April 2025.
They should be compensated for having to find alternative accommodation for that period. It is a direct and foreseeable consequence of the landlords’ breaches. Four weeks compensation @ $450.00 per week is reasonable. General Damages
The purpose of general damages is not to compensate for a quantifiable loss but to compensate for pain or suffering or emotional distress” 11
The applicable considerations are: a. the nature of the breach; 11 See Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 (at para [35]) b. the duration of the breach c. the effect of the breach on the other party 12
Exemplary damages have been awarded for the landlords’ unlawful conduct. In assessing those exemplary damages, the nature of the breach and the effect of the breach are considerations which have been taken into account and which must be considered under s.109(3).
The duration of the breach was relatively short, occurring in the context of an intense and difficult end to the parties’ relationship. The tenants engaged in the dispute and claims brought by them have been upheld, with damages awarded.
Though not relevant to the assessment of exemplary damages, the tenants conduct, in breach of expectations given to the landlords, is relevant in considering whether general damages should be awarded as compensation and whether the trauma and loss of reputation asserted by the tenants in support of their general damages claim is proved.
Apart from the stress and upset inherent in any dispute, the evidence does not show mental or emotional harm being caused that cannot be compensated for financially.
I find that the awards of exemplary damages made, though punitive rather than compensatory in nature, adequately recognise and compensate the tenants for the landlords’ beaches. The grounds for additional compensation through an award of general damages are not proved.
Because [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] have succeeded with claims I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5245322 — Exemplary damages at 56 Endsleigh Drive, Havelock North, Havelock North 4172

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5245322 — Exemplary damages at 56 Endsleigh Drive, Havelock North, Havelock North 4172

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What happened at the end of the tenancy?

Should additional compensation be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

What happened at the end of the tenancy?

Should additional compensation be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions