Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5272402 — Property damage at 16 Icarus Place, Sunnybrook, Rotorua 3015
Decided 11 Sept 2025 · Published 11 Sept 2025 · Application 5272402
- Property damage
- Exemplary damages
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Location
Rotorua
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
M Steens
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
- Application dismissed.
Reasons
- The Landlord attended the hearing.
- The Landlord has applied for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?
- A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
- Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
- Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
- Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
- Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
- Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
- The Landlord claims the Tenant admitted to methamphetamine use during the tenancy. The Landlord suspects the Tenant was manufacturing methamphetamine at the premises, but no probative evidence is advanced in support of this allegation.
- The Landlord did not undertake pre-tenancy testing. The Landlord writes: “We purchased 16 Icarus Place from long time family friends in December 2016. They had lived in the house for 30 years. We did major renovations prior to renting, including a complete new kitchen with appliances, new bathrooms and a heat pump. The tenants, Jason and [The tenant/s] tenant/s] moved in on March 2017 and were the only tenants over 8 years until they moved out in April 2025. Although we did not do a meth test at the time of purchase, there was meth contamination on the new appliances when we tested 8 years later, categorically showing that it came from the tenants, and they did not dispute this. I have attached the first test results, 2 pages of a 29 page document. Please advise if you require the whole document.”
- In the course of the tenancy, the Landlord entered into an agreement to sell the property. A prospective purchaser undertook methamphetamine testing under a toxicology report condition. The test results (sampled 16 April 2025) are shown below: Location of Samples TakenMeth Detectedμg per 100cm² Remediation Required 180050378 Sample A: KitchenYes0.57μgRequired 180050378 Sample B: KitchenYes5.41μgRequired 180050581 Sample A: KitchenYes1.69μgRequired 180050378 Sample C: Dining RoomYes4.58μgRequired 180050378 Sample D: Lounge RoomYes12.1μgRequired 180050378 Sample E: Lounge RoomYes2.36μgRequired 180050378 Sample F: Lounge RoomYes0.47μgRequired 180050378 Sample G: Lounge RoomYes1.41μgRequired 180050378 Sample H: HallwayYes23.7μgRequired 180050378 Sample I: HallwayYes2.31μgRequired 180050581 Sample B: HallwayYes14.0μgRequired 180050581 Sample C: HallwayYes13.2μgRequired 180050378 Sample J: Bedroom 1Yes2.60μgRequired 180050378 Sample K: Bedroom 1Yes7.09μgRequired 180050581 Sample D: Bedroom 1Yes5.15μgRequired 180050378 Sample L: Bedroom 2Yes58.4μgRequired 180050378 Sample M: Bedroom 2Yes3.91μgRequired 180050581 Sample E: Bedroom 2Yes15.6μgRequired 180050378 Sample N: Bedroom 3Yes1.48μgRequired 180050378 Sample O: Bedroom 3Yes12.0μgRequired 180050581 Sample F: Bedroom 3Yes5.64μgRequired 180050378 Sample P: Separate Toilet 1Yes1.90μgRequired 180050378 Sample Q: Separate Toilet 1Yes15.2μgRequired 180050378 Sample R: Separate Toilet 2Yes12.4μgRequired 180050378 Sample S: Separate Toilet 2Yes3.60μgRequired 180050378 Sample T: BathroomYes1.07μgRequired 180050378 Sample U: BathroomYes4.67μgRequired 180050378 Sample V: LaundryYes9.49μgRequired 180050378 Sample W: LaundryYes6.96μgRequired 180050581 Sample G: LaundryYes8.51μgRequired 180050378 Sample X: Shed or OutbuildingYes5.95μgRequired 180050378 Sample Y: Shed or OutbuildingYes15.0μgRequired Room(s) not sampledN/AN/A Reason why rooms not sampledN/AN/A
- The Landlords did not provide a copy of the full methamphetamine testing report with their application. Portions of the April 2025 toxicology report were produced after the hearing, at my request. Assessment
- The Tribunal accepts that the April 2025 results show methamphetamine residue, including levels above both the NZS 8510:2017 standard (1.5 μg/100cm²) and the 15 μg/100cm² threshold identified in the Gluckman Report. The highest reading was 58.4 μg/100cm² in bedroom 2.
- In New Zealand, the lack of pre-tenancy methamphetamine testing can significantly weaken a claim for compensation for damage caused by a tenant during a tenancy. This is because, without such testing, it becomes challenging to establish that the methamphetamine contamination occurred during the tenancy and was caused by the tenant.
- Case law has consistently emphasised the importance of pre-tenancy testing to establish a baseline. For instance, in Eren Ltd v Martin, 1 the Tenancy Tribunal dismissed the Landlord’s claim for compensation for methamphetamine contamination because there was no evidence of testing at the start of the tenancy. The Tribunal found that without such evidence, it could not be proven on the balance of probabilities that the contamination occurred during the tenancy or was caused by the tenant.
- Similarly, in Hodges v Imrie, the Tribunal’s decision was overturned on appeal because the lack of pre-tenancy testing made it impossible to determine whether the contamination occurred during the tenancy. 2 As the adjudicator hearing that case, the Landlord’s evidence appeared compelling to me at the time, but was insufficient, because of causation.
- Without a pre-tenancy baseline test, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the contamination arose during the tenancy rather than before it.
- The Tenants’ alleged admission of methamphetamine use is relevant circumstantial evidence, but without a baseline test it does not prove that the contamination, at the levels recorded, was caused by them during the tenancy.
- The Landlords submit that major renovations were undertaken prior to the tenancy, including new kitchen and bathroom installations and new appliances. They argue that contamination subsequently detected on appliances installed in 2017 must therefore have arisen during the tenancy.
- While this is persuasive circumstantial evidence, it does not displace the evidential requirement for a baseline test. The Tribunal cannot assume that because appliances and fixtures were new in 2017, contamination detected on them in 2025 must have occurred during the tenancy.
- Further, no specific testing results for the appliances or new installations have been produced in evidence. Only selected portions of the toxicology report have been filed. Even if those results had been filed, they would still face the same difficulty: contamination was recorded at the end of the tenancy, but without baseline data the Tribunal cannot exclude the possibility that it pre-dated the tenancy or arose from another source.
- For these reasons the claims for compensation and exemplary damages are dismissed. 1 Erin v Martin [2021] NZDC 15210. 2 Hodges v Imrie [2021] DCR 775.
- I treat the Tenant as having abandoned the bond to the Landlord.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s0, s1, s11, s12, s13, s14, s15, s2, s23, s3, s4, s40(2), s49B, s49B(1), s49B(3), s49B(3A), s5, s58, s6, s7, s8, s8510, s9
Key findings
- Dispute theme: property damage
- Dispute theme: exemplary damages
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5272402 about?
The tribunal order states: Application dismissed.
How much money was awarded in case 5272402?
Verified claim lines are listed on this page.
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5272402?
The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5272402?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12392545-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.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.