What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5291586 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5291586?

Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5291586?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5291586?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12964951-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5291586 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5291586?

Property Damage: $600.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5291586?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5291586?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12964951-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5291586 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5291586 — net $627.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: unlawful seize of the tenant’s goods	$600.00	unlawful seize of the tenant’s goods
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$627.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$627.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5291586 — net $627.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: unlawful seize of the tenant’s goods	$600.00	unlawful seize of the tenant’s goods
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$627.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$627.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the [Tenant] name and identifying details.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.
The tenant’s application, with the exception of the claim for unlawful seizure of his goods after termination of the tenancy, is dismissed.
The tenant’s application under section 33 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 is granted.
By consent, the parties agreed that [The tenant/s] would attend the [Redacted] address on 15 January 2026 at 10:00 a.m. to collect his goods, with the assistance of the former property manager, Ms Hu.
Achievement Family Trust (Trustee: Achievement Trustee Limited) Rui Li must pay [The tenant/s] $627.00 immediately. DescriptionTenant Exemplary damages: unlawful seize of the tenant’s goods $600.00 Filing fee reimbursement $27.00 Total award $627.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $627.00

Reasons

The hearing was held on 13 January 2026. Introduction
At the commencement of the hearing, I confirmed with the parties that the proceeding would be conducted in Mandarin Chinese, as all participants were comfortable with that arrangement.
Mr Rui Li, the director of Achievement Trustee Limited, attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord.
[Tenant 1], the tenant, also attended. The other tenant, [Tenant 2], is currently in China. [The tenant/s] are in a relationship and both signed the tenancy agreement. I consider that the hearing can proceed in [Tenant 2]’s absence, as she is overseas and her interests are aligned with [Tenant 1]’s. Her absence will not cause her any prejudice.
Mr Li and [The tenant/s] agreed to release the property management company, [The property management company], from the proceedings, as the disputes before me did not involve that company. Accordingly, I have amended the respondent to Achievement Family Trust (Trustee: Achievement Trustee Limited) Rui Li. Mr Li is the sole director of Achievement Trustee Limited. Procedural history
On 1 July 2025, I was the adjudicator assigned to this matter. During the hearing, I was informed that Mr Li had filed an appeal against Adjudicator Small’s decision dated 17 December 2024. I therefore decided to adjourn the hearing pending the outcome of that appeal.
In my earlier decision, I recorded the background of the dispute, the key issues raised during the hearing, and the significance of the termination date.
Set out below, between paragraphs 9 and 26, is the main part of my decision issued on 1 July 2025. The hearing on 01 July 2025 “Background
On 19 February 2025, Mr. Li filed an application with the Tribunal seeking rent arrears, unpaid utility bills, compensation for damage to the walls and floor, and storage costs for items left by the tenants.
On 24 June 2025, [The tenant/s] filed a cross-application for non-compliance with the Tribunal’s earlier order dated 17 December 2024 ([2024] NZTT 4919674). His claim included the value of personal property retained by Mr. Li and general damages, including emotional stress caused by the proceedings.
On 23 December 2024, Mr. Li applied for a rehearing, which was declined on 12 February 2025.
I was unaware of Mr. Li’s rehearing application or his subsequent appeal against its dismissal until the issues for adjudication were canvassed during the hearing. Mr. Li stated he filed the appeal in February 2025.
It was disappointing to learn of these developments only during the hearing.
I adjourned briefly to allow the registrar to clarify the status of Mr. Li’s appeal.
After the adjournment, the registrar informed me that evidence from the substantive hearing on 12 December 2024 was being prepared for the court. While the appeal concerned the dismissal of the rehearing, the substantive evidence heard on 12 December 2024 remained relevant, as a successful appeal of the dismissal of the rehearing application could reopen those issues.

Key disputes during the hearing?

Despite the Tribunal’s 17 December 2024 decision, the parties disagreed on the tenancy’s termination date.
Paragraph 34 of the 17 December 2024 decision ruled that the fixed-term tenancy ended on 16 June 2024. However, Mr. Li argued that [The tenant/s] never formally returned keys or confirmed vacating the premises, leading him to charge rent until he regained possession on 5 July 2024. This effectively challenged the Tribunal’s factual findings.
[The tenant/s] countered that Mr. Li had agreed in writing (via email) to terminate the tenancy in exchange for a $12,000 compensation payment due by 13 June 2024, with rent waived from 9 June 2024 until the move-out date (no later than 16 June 2024).
When Mr. Li failed to pay the compensation by 13 June 2024, further negotiations ensued, resulting in disputes over the agreed terms.
Dissatisfied with the substantive findings, Mr. Li pursued a rehearing and later an appeal after its dismissal.
Both parties remained entrenched in their positions, disputing almost every point raised during the hearing. Significance of the termination date
Mr. Li’s claims, including property damage, hinged on proving the damage occurred during the tenancy.
Similarly, disputes over belongings left on the premises and the legality of lock changes depended on the tenancy’s termination date.
Until the appeal is resolved, the parties will continue to contest these foundational issues.
Relying on the 17 December 2024 decision’s findings risks further challenges via rehearing or appeal.
To ensure a fair and expeditious resolution under section 85(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, I concluded the hearing should await the appeal’s outcome.” The hearing today (13 January 2026)
On or about 13 October 2025, Mr Li withdrew his appeal.
At the outset, Mr Li indicated that he wished to resolve the dispute and sought to withdraw his application before me. I accordingly explored whether the matter could be resolved by agreement. During the hearing, I encouraged both parties to “turn the page” (meaning to settle the disputes and move on with life) and to reach a practical resolution of [The tenant/s]’s claim for unlawful seizure of his goods after termination and any compensation claimed.
The parties were given the opportunity to consider whether the matter could be resolved between themselves without my intervention. [The tenant/s] stated that he was primarily seeking compensation for his goods left at the premises when he was required to vacate on 19 June 2024. Those items included a mattress ($800), a bicycle ($500), a metal rack ($200), and a rose plant ($300). [The tenant/s] also provided the value at the hearing without any forms of evidence. Mr Li stated that these items had been safely stored, could be collected at any time, and that he had never refused access.
I provided several opportunities for the parties to consider whether the remaining dispute could be resolved. I explained the relevant law, including section 33 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), and informed them that it would be preferable to settle the matter rather than proceed to a formal determination.
Mr Li indicated a willingness to return the items and to make a modest payment to resolve the dispute. [The tenant/s] initially proposed accepting a 50 per cent valuation of the goods ($900), but later withdrew his offer after Mr Li declined to agree.
Despite my encouragement to facilitate a resolution, [The tenant/s] elected to proceed to a formal decision. Consequently, I was required to determine the matter on its merits. Did Mr Li seize any of [The tenant/s]’s goods?
[The tenant/s] claim the landlord has seized some of their goods.
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 tenant/s]’s account
[The tenant/s] states that on 19 June 2024 he had arranged, through the property manager’s colleague, to complete a final inspection that afternoon. He says that earlier that morning, when he returned to the property to continue moving his belongings, he found that the door locks and remote access codes had been changed, and that Mr Li and another person were already inside the premises.
[The tenant/s] says he was informed by Mr Li that the property had been “taken back” and that he could no longer enter. He called the police, who told him that they could not remove the landlord, and that the matter was a civil dispute. [The tenant/s] maintains that he was thereby excluded from the premises and unable to collect his remaining possessions.
He further says that although he subsequently mentioned the issue in his earlier claim in the December 2024 hearing, the issue was not addressed in the first Tribunal decision before Adjudicator Small. He believes that Mr Li effectively seized his goods and later sought to charge him storage fees. By the time of this hearing, he argued that the items had been left in storage for about 18 months and were no longer usable, and he sought monetary compensation instead of their return. Mr Li’s account
Mr Li denies that he “seized” or intentionally withheld any of [The tenant/s]’s goods. He says that [The tenant/s] was free to remove the items by contacting him for an appointment. According to Mr Li, the goods were left behind when [The tenant/s] vacated the premises and were later placed for safekeeping in a friend’s storage area.
He maintains that the locks were not changed in a way that prevented access, and that he never intended to bar his tenant, [The tenant/s], from collecting the goods. Mr Li says that on the day of the incident, he told [The tenant/s] he could take his goods, and that his friend, [The landlord’s friend], also contacted [The tenant/s] by telephone on 24 February 2025 to confirm that the goods remained available and could be collected by arrangement.
Mr Li emphasises that he has continued to store the items without charge and that [The tenant/s] could have retrieved them at any time by making contact. Analysis and conclusion
I have carefully considered the submissions of all parties and the prior Tribunal decision issued on 17 December 2024. In that earlier proceeding, it was found that Mr Li had changed the locks during the tenancy without consent. That finding is significant and determinative of this dispute. It means that, as of 19 June 2024, Mr Li was in possession and [The tenant/s] could no longer lawfully access the premises without Mr Li’s consent.
Even if Mr Li later offered the return of the goods, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the initial change of locks and the exclusion of [The tenant/s] amounted to the landlord, Mr Li, taking control of [The tenant/s]’s property. In practical terms, Mr Li assumed custody of the goods, and his continuing possession was inconsistent with [The tenant/s]’s right to immediate access.
Section 33 of the RTA provides that the landlord must not be entitled to seize or dispose of any of the tenant’s goods as security or for any other reason arising from the tenancy. (emphasis mine)
It was not in dispute that the parties were engaged in ongoing and bitter litigation, including over whether there had been an agreement to compensate [The tenant/s] $12,000 for the early termination of a 1 year fixed-term tenancy. Subsequently, Mr Li changed the locks, which prevented [The tenant/s] from accessing the property to retrieve his goods, due to the ongoing dispute regarding the tenancy.
Although the goods were eventually stored rather than destroyed, approximately 18 months passed without their return. In my view, this is unlawful. Accordingly, I find that Mr Li committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to $3,000 where it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
During the 18-month period, [The tenant/s] did not dispute that Mr Li made at least one attempt to return the goods through his friend, [The landlord’s friend], on 24 February 2025. Mr Li stated that he, rather than [The landlord’s friend], was the one who raised the issue. In my view, it matters little who initiated the issue of returning [The tenant/s]’s goods, as there was no suggestion that Mr Li intended to continue retaining [The tenant/s]’s goods if communication between the parties had resumed.
I acknowledge that, at that time, the parties were unlikely to have been on good terms, as the litigation between them was still ongoing.
In my view, Mr Li’s actions were not malicious but reflected a disregard for the legal consequences of changing the locks at a time when the parties were deeply entrenched in their respective positions, which had emotionally consumed them both, while [The tenant/s]’s goods remained inside. Given the Tribunal’s earlier finding that changing the locks without the tenant’s consent was unlawful, and the significant period that elapsed before any practical remedy was offered, I consider that awarding exemplary damages in favour of [The tenant/s] is warranted.
There are comparable cases in which the Tribunal has awarded exemplary damages ranging between $600 and $2,000. a. In Frontier Property Management Ltd v O’Halloran-Turner [2023] NZTT 4541297, 4563534, the Tribunal awarded exemplary damages of $2,000 where the landlord damaged the tenant’s goods, and the condition of those goods remained unknown. b. In Kumar v Sun & Lee [2023] NZTT 4516530, the Tribunal awarded exemplary damages of $1,000 where the landlord disposed of the tenant’s goods following a flood without consent. c. In [Tenant] v Parkhurst Corporation Ltd & Peter Williams [2025] NZTT 5077288, the Tribunal awarded exemplary damages of $600 where the landlord failed to secure the tenant’s goods after an eviction. d. In Reid & Soroka v Piha & Weiss [2025] NZTT 5245322, 5342622, the Tribunal awarded exemplary damages of $2,000 where the landlords seized the tenants’ goods during an ongoing dispute.
[The tenant/s] did not provide any evidence as to the value of his goods, and their value therefore remains unknown. However, I accept that he was deprived of their use. On the other hand, [The tenant/s] had a legal duty to mitigate the consequences of Mr Li’s breach by taking reasonable steps to contact Mr Li and make the necessary arrangements to retrieve his goods, as required under section 49 of the RTA. No evidence before me that [The tenant/s] took such reasonable steps.
Having regard to the age and condition of the goods as shown in the photographic evidence, their likely depreciation, the length of time they were held before [The landlord’s friend]’s contact (approximately eight months), and the fact that [The tenant/s] could have been more proactive in arranging their retrieval, I assess that $600 is the appropriate exemplary damage.
I would have followed Reid & Soroka v Piha & Weiss if, at the relevant time, the parties had already brought their dispute before the Tribunal and Mr Li had used force to obtain possession. However, the present case is not comparable in those respects, and therefore I consider that $600 is an appropriate award.
Accordingly, I order that the landlord, Achievement Trustee Limited as trustee of the Achievement Family Trust, pay [The tenant/s] exemplary damages of $600. Agreed date and time for [The tenant/s] to collect his goods
The parties also agreed that [The tenant/s] would attend the [Redacted] address on 15 January 2026 at 10:00 a.m. to collect his goods, with the assistance of the former property manager, Ms Hu.
[The tenant/s] may contact Ms Hu to confirm the [Redacted] address, or Ms Hu may contact [The tenant/s] to provide the address, whichever is more convenient.
I note that Ms Hu has agreed to provide assistance to ensure the handover proceeds smoothly. She is not attending in any capacity to receive or address further complaints from either [The tenant/s] or Mr Li. Name suppression
Because [The tenant/s] has wholly succeeded in the proceedings, I have granted the name suppression application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5291586 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5291586 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Key disputes during the hearing?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Key disputes during the hearing?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions