What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5247172 about?

The tribunal order states: The application for a rehearing is granted.

How much money was awarded in case 5247172?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5247172?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5247172?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12723358-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5247172 about?

The tribunal order states: The application for a rehearing is granted.

How much money was awarded in case 5247172?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5247172?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5247172?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12723358-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

5 Newbury Lane, Casebrook, Christchurch 8051 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5247172 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5247172. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
3. The landlord is to pay the bond of	$2,720.00		3. The landlord is to pay the bond of

Order

The application for a rehearing is granted.
The landlord’s application for termination of the tenancy and reimbursement of the filing fee is dismissed.
The landlord is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 to the Bond Centre immediately.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing which was conducted by telephone. Ms MacGregor and Ms Mathews of Whalan & Partners attended the hearing for the landlord.
On 22 August 2025, this Tribunal issued an Order terminating the tenancy, ordering the tenant to pay rent arrears and the filing fee to the landlord and ordering the Bond Centre to release the bond to the landlord.
On the same date, the tenant lodged an application for a rehearing and a stay of proceedings. These applications were granted.
Ms MacGregor advises that the landlord is in possession of the bond which it is holding awaiting the outcome of today’s hearing.
The parties were advised that the Tribunal would consider the application for a rehearing and, if the tenant was successful, hold the rehearing at today’s hearing.

Should the rehearing be granted?

The tenant provided evidence that on the morning of the hearing he sent an email to the Registry asking if the hearing could be adjourned to a later date due as he was unwell. The Registry replied advising that he could request an adjournment and should attach the medical certificate to that application.
Usually, parties apply for an adjournment by sending an email to the Tribunal with the appropriate evidence.
The tenant said that following the email from the Registry, he visited his doctor that morning and then lodged an application for a rehearing with the medical certificate that afternoon.
I am satisfied that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred, and a rehearing is granted in accordance with section 105 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The landlord was not able to send the Tribunal a rent ledger for today’s hearing but advised that the tenant was not currently in rent arrears and was paid up to 20 November 2025. Ms MacGregor said the landlord still wished to terminate the tenancy.
The landlord had initially made an application to terminate the tenancy under section 56 of the RTA. This section provides: (1) On an application made to it under this section by the landlord or the tenant, the Tribunal may make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that— (a) the other party has committed a breach of any of the provisions of the tenancy agreement (including provisions relating to the payment of rent) or of this Act; and (b) in the case of a breach capable of remedy,— (i) the applicant gave to the other party a notice specifying the nature of the breach complained of and requiring the other party to remedy the breach within a reasonable period, being not less than 14 days commencing with the day on which the notice was given; and (ii) the other party failed to remedy the default within the required period; and (c) that the breach is of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy. (2) Where an application is made by a landlord under this section and the Tribunal is satisfied that at the time of determining the matter the landlord could have made an application under section 55, the Tribunal shall determine the matter as if an application had been made under that section.
Section 55(1) of the RTA provides that where rent is at least 21 days in arrears on the date of the application, the Tribunal must terminate the tenancy. The landlord lodged the application on 29 April 2025. On that date, the tenant was not 21 days in arrears. As the hearing day is now today, the tenant is not currently in arrears. Therefore, the matter must be determined in accordance with section 56(1) of the RTA.
Subsections 56(1)(a) and (b) of the RTA are satisfied. The tenant committed a breach of the tenancy agreement, the breach was capable of remedy and the landlord issued a 14-day notice. The tenant failed to remedy the breach within that timeframe.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229 (Judge Rowe), the Court considered the requirement in section 56(1)(c) of whether the breach: ...is of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy.
The Court set out a range of factors that would be relevant in that case, being:
The history of the tenancy.
Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings.
Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future.
Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed.
The conduct of the landlord.
The gravity of the breach.
Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
This tenancy started in December 2023. From the rent records provided at the last hearing, I can see that the tenant did not fall into rent arrears until 18 April 2025. Prior to that date, the tenant paid his rent on time and was often in credit.
On 23 April 2025, the landlord issued a 14-day notice. The tenant was in rent arrears from 18 April 2025 until 17 October 2025. During this time, the landlord made an application to the Tribunal, an Order terminating the tenancy was issued on 22 August 2025 and an Order granting the tenant’s application for a rehearing and issuing a stay of proceedings was made on 23 August 2025.
The tenant says that the reason he was in arrears was because he was suffering from a serious health issue at the time which caused him a great deal of stress. The tenant says that he does not believe he will go into rent arrears again because he has plans in place and support.
While I am only aware of one warning (the 14-day notice), the tenant’s failure to pay rent was persistent and the breach was serious.
I do not consider the breach was deliberately committed. However, I am also not of the view that it was wholly inadvertent. Given the history prior to April 2025 and the tenant’s explanation, I am satisfied that the tenant was suffering from extreme stress caused by a health issue which led to him to fail to pay his rent. While this is not an excuse, it does go some way to explaining the tenant’s failure to pay rent.
In this case, I do not consider the breach is such that it makes it unlikely the tenant will comply with his obligations in future.
By a slim margin, I find that in these circumstances, the tenant’s failure to pay rent is not of such a nature or an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy.
The landlord’s application to terminate the tenancy is dismissed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5247172. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
3. The landlord is to pay the bond of	$2,720.00		3. The landlord is to pay the bond of

Order

The application for a rehearing is granted.
The landlord’s application for termination of the tenancy and reimbursement of the filing fee is dismissed.
The landlord is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 to the Bond Centre immediately.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing which was conducted by telephone. Ms MacGregor and Ms Mathews of Whalan & Partners attended the hearing for the landlord.
On 22 August 2025, this Tribunal issued an Order terminating the tenancy, ordering the tenant to pay rent arrears and the filing fee to the landlord and ordering the Bond Centre to release the bond to the landlord.
On the same date, the tenant lodged an application for a rehearing and a stay of proceedings. These applications were granted.
Ms MacGregor advises that the landlord is in possession of the bond which it is holding awaiting the outcome of today’s hearing.
The parties were advised that the Tribunal would consider the application for a rehearing and, if the tenant was successful, hold the rehearing at today’s hearing.

Should the rehearing be granted?

The tenant provided evidence that on the morning of the hearing he sent an email to the Registry asking if the hearing could be adjourned to a later date due as he was unwell. The Registry replied advising that he could request an adjournment and should attach the medical certificate to that application.
Usually, parties apply for an adjournment by sending an email to the Tribunal with the appropriate evidence.
The tenant said that following the email from the Registry, he visited his doctor that morning and then lodged an application for a rehearing with the medical certificate that afternoon.
I am satisfied that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred, and a rehearing is granted in accordance with section 105 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The landlord was not able to send the Tribunal a rent ledger for today’s hearing but advised that the tenant was not currently in rent arrears and was paid up to 20 November 2025. Ms MacGregor said the landlord still wished to terminate the tenancy.
The landlord had initially made an application to terminate the tenancy under section 56 of the RTA. This section provides: (1) On an application made to it under this section by the landlord or the tenant, the Tribunal may make an order terminating the tenancy if the Tribunal is satisfied that— (a) the other party has committed a breach of any of the provisions of the tenancy agreement (including provisions relating to the payment of rent) or of this Act; and (b) in the case of a breach capable of remedy,— (i) the applicant gave to the other party a notice specifying the nature of the breach complained of and requiring the other party to remedy the breach within a reasonable period, being not less than 14 days commencing with the day on which the notice was given; and (ii) the other party failed to remedy the default within the required period; and (c) that the breach is of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy. (2) Where an application is made by a landlord under this section and the Tribunal is satisfied that at the time of determining the matter the landlord could have made an application under section 55, the Tribunal shall determine the matter as if an application had been made under that section.
Section 55(1) of the RTA provides that where rent is at least 21 days in arrears on the date of the application, the Tribunal must terminate the tenancy. The landlord lodged the application on 29 April 2025. On that date, the tenant was not 21 days in arrears. As the hearing day is now today, the tenant is not currently in arrears. Therefore, the matter must be determined in accordance with section 56(1) of the RTA.
Subsections 56(1)(a) and (b) of the RTA are satisfied. The tenant committed a breach of the tenancy agreement, the breach was capable of remedy and the landlord issued a 14-day notice. The tenant failed to remedy the breach within that timeframe.
In Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management [2020] NZDC 19229 (Judge Rowe), the Court considered the requirement in section 56(1)(c) of whether the breach: ...is of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy.
The Court set out a range of factors that would be relevant in that case, being:
The history of the tenancy.
Whether there had been a persistent failure after repeated warnings.
Whether the history of breaches was such it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future.
Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed.
The conduct of the landlord.
The gravity of the breach.
Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
This tenancy started in December 2023. From the rent records provided at the last hearing, I can see that the tenant did not fall into rent arrears until 18 April 2025. Prior to that date, the tenant paid his rent on time and was often in credit.
On 23 April 2025, the landlord issued a 14-day notice. The tenant was in rent arrears from 18 April 2025 until 17 October 2025. During this time, the landlord made an application to the Tribunal, an Order terminating the tenancy was issued on 22 August 2025 and an Order granting the tenant’s application for a rehearing and issuing a stay of proceedings was made on 23 August 2025.
The tenant says that the reason he was in arrears was because he was suffering from a serious health issue at the time which caused him a great deal of stress. The tenant says that he does not believe he will go into rent arrears again because he has plans in place and support.
While I am only aware of one warning (the 14-day notice), the tenant’s failure to pay rent was persistent and the breach was serious.
I do not consider the breach was deliberately committed. However, I am also not of the view that it was wholly inadvertent. Given the history prior to April 2025 and the tenant’s explanation, I am satisfied that the tenant was suffering from extreme stress caused by a health issue which led to him to fail to pay his rent. While this is not an excuse, it does go some way to explaining the tenant’s failure to pay rent.
In this case, I do not consider the breach is such that it makes it unlikely the tenant will comply with his obligations in future.
By a slim margin, I find that in these circumstances, the tenant’s failure to pay rent is not of such a nature or an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy.
The landlord’s application to terminate the tenancy is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5247172 — Rent arrears at 5 Newbury Lane, Casebrook, Christchurch 8051

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5247172 — Rent arrears at 5 Newbury Lane, Casebrook, Christchurch 8051

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the rehearing be granted?

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the rehearing be granted?

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions