Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5264200 — Exemplary damages at 456A Heads Road, Castlecliff, Whanganui 4501
Decided 19 Sept 2025 · Published 19 Sept 2025 · Application 5264200
- Exemplary damages
Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Location
Whanganui
Tribunal region
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.
Order
- The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
- The landlord’s claims are dismissed.
Reasons
- The landlord attended the hearing in person. The tenant attended by telephone.
- The landlord’s application was for: a. Exemplary damages for the tenant using the premises for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). b. Compensation for damage caused to plasterboard in the kitchen. Standard of proof and exercise of jurisdiction
- In considering the landlord’s claims, the “standard of proof” is “on the balance of probabilities.” In other words, the landlord must establish with evidence that their claim is “more likely than not.” Each of the claims has been considered bearing in mind the standard of proof required.
- It is for an applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove their claims. If the applicant fails to do so then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, because it is for the applicant to provide the required evidence. It is not the Tribunal’s responsibility to extract evidence.
- While this order may not have referred to all the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. Claim for exemplary damages
- The landlord claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully.
- Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A RTA.
- Section 109(2) RTA provides that a landlord may not apply to the Tribunal for exemplary damages 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act. This tenancy ended on 20 April 2024. The landlord filed their application on 23 May 2025. This is more than 12 months after the end of the tenancy and so the landlord’s application must be dismissed.
- If the landlord had applied within the 12-month period, the Tribunal would have dismissed their application for the following reasons: a. The landlord alleged that the tenant breached the tenancy agreement which prohibited the use of the premises for commercial purposes and the landlord had not consented to using the kitchen for commercial purposes. The tenancy agreement provides that the tenant’s responsibility was to “use the premises principally for residential purposes”. The evidence of both the landlord and the tenant are that the premises were used principally for residential purposes; that is, it was used principally as the tenant’s home. Any commercial use was minor. b. The landlord did not indicate which law or regulation the tenant had breached. Instead, he claimed that the tenant had breached a term of the tenancy agreement. As indicated above, the Tribunal does not agree. In any case, a breach of a term of the tenancy agreement is a breach of a contractual term. It is not a breach of a law or regulation. c. The landlord’s own evidence was that the local council had approved the kitchen for commercial lease. The tenant was not therefore in breach of any bylaw or regulation. Using the kitchen for a commercial purpose with the required consent or licence from the appropriate regulatory body cannot therefore be an unlawful use of the premises. Claim for compensation
- The landlord claimed that the tenant’s use of the kitchen for a commercial purpose had damaged the plasterboard above the sink.
- The landlord produced no evidence of the condition of the area of alleged damage either at the start of the tenancy or at its end to show. The landlord has not therefore provided any evidence that any damage had caused by the tenant during the tenancy.
- The tenant rejected the landlord’s claim for compensation and denied causing the damage alleged by the landlord. The tenant provided photographs of the kitchen at the end of the tenancy which do not disclose any damage.
- On the evidence before the Tribunal, the landlord has failed to prove that the tenant caused any damage to the kitchen.
- The landlord’s claim is dismissed.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s109(2), s12, s40(2), s40(3A), s6
Key findings
- Dispute theme: exemplary damages
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5264200 about?
The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
How much money was awarded in case 5264200?
Verified claim lines are listed on this page.
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5264200?
The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5264200?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12435781-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.
For landlords & property managers
Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.
Tenantcheck reports take minutes: a small step before a dispute ends up at tribunal.