What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5250642 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application to reduce the fixed term tenancy is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5250642?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5250642?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5250642?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11922730-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5250642 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application to reduce the fixed term tenancy is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5250642?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5250642?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5250642?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11922730-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5250642 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The tenant’s application to reduce the fixed term tenancy is dismissed.
An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Reasons

Both parties attended the phone hearing.
The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy. Relevant legal provisions
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 applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, 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.” Tenant’s position
The tenant seeks to reduce the fixed term tenancy due to what he says is an unforeseen change in his circumstances and the resulting hardship.
The tenant entered a fixed term tenancy commencing 20 August 2024 with a contractual end date of 19 August 2025.
On 23 March 2025 the tenant entered into a conditional sale and purchase agreement to purchase his own home.
That same day he was in a motorbike accident. As a result of the accident, he has sustained a number of injuries and has been on ACC. He has however returned to work and for the last three weeks (most of May 2025) has received his full and usual salary.
The tenant’s house purchase settled on 22 April 2024.
The tenant has vacated the premises and moved into his own home.
The tenant says the unforeseeable change in circumstances is not that he purchased his own home as such, but rather that he had a motorbike accident which has resulted in unforeseen expenses associated with his injury which is causing hardship. This hardship has been effectively exacerbated by the purchase of his home and the mortgage costs associated with that. Landlord’s position
The landlord objects to the fixed term tenancy being reduced.
The landlord says the crux of the issue is that tenant purchased a new home, and they say the purchasing of a property is not an unforeseen change in circumstances.
The landlord also says the tenant will not suffer severe hardship.
The landlord has agreed to release the tenant from the fixed term provided new tenants are found and the tenant pays associated expenses in finding new tenants. To date, no new tenant has been found due to the nature of the current rental market. Reducing a fixed term tenancy
The usual legal position with fixed term contracts, is that the term of the contract will be applied strictly, and it will only be in limited circumstances, that a decision maker like the Tribunal would interfere with that term. There is a high threshold that needs to be met before the Tribunal will reduce the fixed term.
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. 1
Hardship is not defined in the Act. However, the New Zealand Law Dictionary, 2 defines hardship as, “adverse repercussions whether mental or physical ranging from temporary discomfort or inconvenience to some permanent and unalterable misfortune”.
Where the Tribunal makes an order reducing the term of the tenancy, the Tribunal may order that the applicant pay to the other party an amount determined by the Tribunal by way of reasonable compensation for any loss or damage to the other party which would result from the reduction in the term of the tenancy. 3
In the case of Elliot Lawes and ors v Comprende Limited 4 . Adjudicator Lash said in that case:
Section 66 sets a high threshold for reducing fixed term tenancies. The jurisdiction in this section is an extension to the 1 See section 66(1) of the RTA. 2 New Zealand Law Dictionary, 10th edition, P Spiller, Lexis Nexis New Zealand February 2022. 3 Section 66(2) of the RTA. 4 Elliot Lawes and ors v Comprende Limited [2022] NZTT 4365020 doctrine of frustration found in the general law of contract. In most cases, s66 is used to seek a balance between the competing interests of applicant tenants, for whom significant obligations under fixed term agreements can create severe hardship when circumstances unexpectedly turn against them, and landlords, who have financial obligations and expectations of their own arising from the same bargain.
The term “unforeseen” is a legal term defined by reference to the reverse (“foreseeability”) in cases relating to negligence (in determining whether a duty of care is owed and what damages are reasonably foreseeable) and in cases assessing damages for breach of contract (also in assessing the remoteness of damage). In both contexts, there is a body of case law which has established that: (a)foreseeability must be assessed objectively through the eyes of a reasonable person who has taken all reasonable steps to inform himself of the circumstances; (b)an outcome is foreseeable in legal terms if it is “liable to result”, “not unlikely”, “quite likely”, a “real danger”, a “serious possibility” or a “real risk”. (c)The term “unforeseen” has few if any direct dictionary definitions, but by thesaurus is aligned with such concepts as “unexpected” and “without warning”. In a legal context, it must also be taken as the reverse of what is “foreseen”, thus being “not liable to result”, “unlikely”, “not a real danger”, “not a serious possibility” or “not a real risk”.”
From the outset of the hearing, I outlined the relevant legal basis on which the Tribunal can reduce a fixed term tenancy so that the parties understood on what basis I would be determining the matter.

Unforeseen change in circumstances?

Section 66 of the RTA is intended to capture changes to tenants’ circumstances which are unavoidable and unexpected, such as suffering a job loss or ill health, which require the tenant to relocate.
In this case, the tenant purchased a home with the full knowledge that he was subject to a fixed term tenancy.
The tenant accepts that he would be liable for rent until the end of the fixed term. The issue in this case for him is the added expenses resulting from the motorbike accident.
I accept that the motorbike accident was unforeseen. However following the accident, the tenant should have considered whether he had the finances to meet both his rent and mortgage obligations, before confirming the finance condition of the sale and purchase agreement.
In my view it is the impact of the decision to purchase a home that has resulted in financial difficulty for the tenant, and this would have been a foreseeable possibility when the tenant entered into the sale and purchase agreement and when he subsequently confirmed the agreement as unconditional.
I consider the tenant’s current financial situation could have been avoided if the tenant delayed purchasing a property or the settlement date for the purchase until after the end of the fixed term tenancy.

Severe Hardship?

I am also not satisfied that the tenant has proven that he will experience severe hardship if the fixed term is not reduced.
I consider insufficient evidence has been provided in relation to any increased pressure on the tenant's finances resulting from the accident. The tenant has not provided details of appointments, costs, and invoices in relation to his medical needs. His current income appears likely to meet both his rent and mortgage obligations.
The tenant has been meeting both rent and mortgage obligations for the last month (except for the last week’s rent) and I consider the hardship to him to be nominal to moderate but not severe. Outcome
I consider there has not been an unforeseen change in the tenant's circumstances that has resulted in a situation where the tenant would experience severe hardship if the fixed term tenancy were not reduced.
I therefore dismiss the application to reduce the fixed term tenancy. Suppression
The tenant did not seek name suppression.
The landlord sought name suppression and as they have had substantial success in defending the application I make an order for name suppression for the landlord. 5

Reasons

Both parties attended the phone hearing.

The tenant has applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy. Relevant legal provisions

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 applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, 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.” Tenant’s position

The tenant seeks to reduce the fixed term tenancy due to what he says is an unforeseen change in his circumstances and the resulting hardship.

The tenant entered a fixed term tenancy commencing 20 August 2024 with a contractual end date of 19 August 2025.

On 23 March 2025 the tenant entered into a conditional sale and purchase agreement to purchase his own home.

That same day he was in a motorbike accident. As a result of the accident, he has sustained a number of injuries and has been on ACC. He has however returned to work and for the last three weeks (most of May 2025) has received his full and usual salary.

The tenant’s house purchase settled on 22 April 2024.

The tenant has vacated the premises and moved into his own home.

The tenant says the unforeseeable change in circumstances is not that he purchased his own home as such, but rather that he had a motorbike accident which has resulted in unforeseen expenses associated with his injury which is causing hardship. This hardship has been effectively exacerbated by the purchase of his home and the mortgage costs associated with that. Landlord’s position

The landlord objects to the fixed term tenancy being reduced.

The landlord says the crux of the issue is that tenant purchased a new home, and they say the purchasing of a property is not an unforeseen change in circumstances.

The landlord also says the tenant will not suffer severe hardship.

The landlord has agreed to release the tenant from the fixed term provided new tenants are found and the tenant pays associated expenses in finding new tenants. To date, no new tenant has been found due to the nature of the current rental market. Reducing a fixed term tenancy

The usual legal position with fixed term contracts, is that the term of the contract will be applied strictly, and it will only be in limited circumstances, that a decision maker like the Tribunal would interfere with that term. There is a high threshold that needs to be met before the Tribunal will reduce the fixed term.

The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. 1

Hardship is not defined in the Act. However, the New Zealand Law Dictionary, 2 defines hardship as, “adverse repercussions whether mental or physical ranging from temporary discomfort or inconvenience to some permanent and unalterable misfortune”.

Where the Tribunal makes an order reducing the term of the tenancy, the Tribunal may order that the applicant pay to the other party an amount determined by the Tribunal by way of reasonable compensation for any loss or damage to the other party which would result from the reduction in the term of the tenancy. 3

In the case of Elliot Lawes and ors v Comprende Limited 4 . Adjudicator Lash said in that case:

Section 66 sets a high threshold for reducing fixed term tenancies. The jurisdiction in this section is an extension to the 1 See section 66(1) of the RTA. 2 New Zealand Law Dictionary, 10th edition, P Spiller, Lexis Nexis New Zealand February 2022. 3 Section 66(2) of the RTA. 4 Elliot Lawes and ors v Comprende Limited [2022] NZTT 4365020 doctrine of frustration found in the general law of contract. In most cases, s66 is used to seek a balance between the competing interests of applicant tenants, for whom significant obligations under fixed term agreements can create severe hardship when circumstances unexpectedly turn against them, and landlords, who have financial obligations and expectations of their own arising from the same bargain.

The term “unforeseen” is a legal term defined by reference to the reverse (“foreseeability”) in cases relating to negligence (in determining whether a duty of care is owed and what damages are reasonably foreseeable) and in cases assessing damages for breach of contract (also in assessing the remoteness of damage). In both contexts, there is a body of case law which has established that: (a)foreseeability must be assessed objectively through the eyes of a reasonable person who has taken all reasonable steps to inform himself of the circumstances; (b)an outcome is foreseeable in legal terms if it is “liable to result”, “not unlikely”, “quite likely”, a “real danger”, a “serious possibility” or a “real risk”. (c)The term “unforeseen” has few if any direct dictionary definitions, but by thesaurus is aligned with such concepts as “unexpected” and “without warning”. In a legal context, it must also be taken as the reverse of what is “foreseen”, thus being “not liable to result”, “unlikely”, “not a real danger”, “not a serious possibility” or “not a real risk”.”

From the outset of the hearing, I outlined the relevant legal basis on which the Tribunal can reduce a fixed term tenancy so that the parties understood on what basis I would be determining the matter.

Unforeseen change in circumstances?

Section 66 of the RTA is intended to capture changes to tenants’ circumstances which are unavoidable and unexpected, such as suffering a job loss or ill health, which require the tenant to relocate.

In this case, the tenant purchased a home with the full knowledge that he was subject to a fixed term tenancy.

The tenant accepts that he would be liable for rent until the end of the fixed term. The issue in this case for him is the added expenses resulting from the motorbike accident.

I accept that the motorbike accident was unforeseen. However following the accident, the tenant should have considered whether he had the finances to meet both his rent and mortgage obligations, before confirming the finance condition of the sale and purchase agreement.

In my view it is the impact of the decision to purchase a home that has resulted in financial difficulty for the tenant, and this would have been a foreseeable possibility when the tenant entered into the sale and purchase agreement and when he subsequently confirmed the agreement as unconditional.

I consider the tenant’s current financial situation could have been avoided if the tenant delayed purchasing a property or the settlement date for the purchase until after the end of the fixed term tenancy.

Severe Hardship?

I am also not satisfied that the tenant has proven that he will experience severe hardship if the fixed term is not reduced.

I consider insufficient evidence has been provided in relation to any increased pressure on the tenant's finances resulting from the accident. The tenant has not provided details of appointments, costs, and invoices in relation to his medical needs. His current income appears likely to meet both his rent and mortgage obligations.

The tenant has been meeting both rent and mortgage obligations for the last month (except for the last week’s rent) and I consider the hardship to him to be nominal to moderate but not severe. Outcome

I consider there has not been an unforeseen change in the tenant's circumstances that has resulted in a situation where the tenant would experience severe hardship if the fixed term tenancy were not reduced.

I therefore dismiss the application to reduce the fixed term tenancy. Suppression

The tenant did not seek name suppression.

The landlord sought name suppression and as they have had substantial success in defending the application I make an order for name suppression for the landlord. 5

Tenancy Tribunal case 5250642 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5250642 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Unforeseen change in circumstances?

Severe Hardship?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Unforeseen change in circumstances?

Severe Hardship?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions