What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5304013 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 5304013?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5304013?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5304013?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12200481-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5304013 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 5304013?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5304013?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5304013?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12200481-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5304013 — Exemplary damages

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Baseden Property Management Limited As Agent For Pao Chu Hsu is granted possession of the premises at [Tenancy address suppressed] at 11.59pm on Wednesday 6 August 2025.
The tenants’ application for an order declaring that the termination notice was retaliatory is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone conference, with Mr Baseden representing the landlord.
This tenancy commenced on 1 August 2021 for a fixed term. The fixed term has been renewed several times with the last renewal ending on 26 July 2025.
On 18 June 2025, the landlord emailed the tenants advising that the owner had decided not to renew the tenancy for a further term. This was followed by a formal notice sent by email on 19 June 2025 in which the landlord confirmed that the lease would end on 26 July 2025. The landlord recorded that the tenants had been excellent tenants and the landlord was more than happy to provide a glowing reference.
Subsequently, the tenants requested a three-month extension of the lease to give them further time to find a new home and vacate. They operate a business from the premises (with the landlord’s consent) and noted that it would be extremely difficult to find a new home to meet their residential and business needs in such a short time frame of just over a month. The landlord would not agree to an extension.
The tenants also put the landlord on notice that they believed they were entitled to 90 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy. The landlord replied by email on 27 June 2025 advising that “the notice was given within the effective period, which starts on the 90 th day before the fixed term expiry and ends on the 21 st day before the fixed term” ends. They also attached a link to the Tenancy Services webpage explaining the rules for ending a tenancy when the fixed term expires. Does the landlord’s notice comply with the RTA?
Section 60A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) was amended with effect from 30 January 2025. Section 60A(1) provides that on the expiry of a fixed- term tenancy of more than 90 days, the tenancy continues as a periodic tenancy with the same terms as the terms contained in the expired tenancy so far as those terms are consistent with a periodic tenancy. However, section 60A(2)(c) provides that the tenancy does not continue as a periodic tenancy if within the effective period, either party gives to the other party written notice of their intention not to continue with the tenancy.
The effective period is the period that starts on the 90th day before the date on which the tenancy expires and ends on the 21st day before that date. See section 60A(2A).
In other words, section 60A allows a landlord to give a unilateral notice not to continue the tenancy on the expiry of the fixed term. This provision was repealed from 11 February 2021. However, it was reintroduced with effect on 30 January 2025. Therefore, the landlord’s notice complies with the RTA. Is the landlord’s notice retaliatory?
The tenants claim the notice given by the landlord not to continue with the tenancy after the fixed term expired was retaliatory. Just prior to the landlord’s notice, the tenants had asked the landlord to repair the driveway at the property. They had also asked for a renewal on the basis that the rent not be increased as proposed by the landlord. The parties could not agree on these matters and the tenants claim that the landlord’s decision not to continue the tenancy was a direct and retaliatory reaction to their requests. They seek a declaration that the notice is retaliatory and of no effect. However, they indicated at the hearing that they were not attempting to prevent the owner from dealing with the premises as she wished but they would like further notice. Given the length of the tenancy, the fact that they operate a business from the premises, have made improvements to, and taken good care of the property, they consider that an extension of the notice period for at least another month would be fair.
Section 54 RTA sets out the grounds that must be met before the Tribunal may declare a termination notice retaliatory. The tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. However, section 54(1) states: This section applies in relation to a notice given by a landlord terminating the tenancy, being a notice that complies with the requirements of section 51 RTA. Section 51 prescribes the notice that may be given by parties in a periodic tenancy only. For example, it allows a landlord to give a 90 day notice to terminate a periodic tenancy for no reason and a 42 day notice to terminate a periodic tenancy in specified situations.
This tenancy was not a periodic tenancy when the landlord gave the tenants notice not to continue the tenancy, and the notice was not given under section 51 but under s60A(2)(c). Therefore, the Tribunal cannot consider whether it was retaliatory. For that reason, the tenants’ claim must fail and is dismissed.

Is the landlord entitled to possession of the premises?

The landlord has applied for possession of the premises following the termination of the tenancy.
The tenancy ended on 26 July 2025, which is less than 90 days ago. The requirements of section 64(1) of the RTA are satisfied and the landlord is entitled to a possession order.
The tenants were unaware that the landlord could terminate their tenancy on less than 90 days’ notice. That is understandable. There have been numerous amendments to the RTA over the years and until 30 January 2025, a landlord could not unilaterally end a fixed term tenancy on the expiry of the term. I also accept that the tenants made their application under s54 in good faith believing that the notice was retaliatory. Had their tenancy been periodic, they may well have succeeded with their claim. They have advised that they have largely packed up their belongings but ask for some further time until the end of August to vacate as they have not secured a new tenancy yet. The landlord has undertaken to obtain instructions from the owner but seeks a possession order effective immediately. He is however hopeful that the owner may agree to some extra time and delay enforcement of a possession order, given that the tenants have been long term, exemplary tenants.
Under s64, where the landlord has proved they are entitled to possession of the premises following the termination of a tenancy, the Tribunal must make an order granting possession of the premises to the landlord.
After careful consideration, I am delaying possession for a short period which I consider is fair and reasonable because of the following factors: The tenants advise that they have largely packed their belongings and fully intend to make every effort to vacate the premises; This has been a long term tenancy of almost 4 years; Notice to end the tenancy was given towards the end of the effective period which has been a shock to the tenants and gave them minimal time to find an alternative tenancy and vacate. The possession order will take effect at 11.59pm on Wednesday 6 August 2025.

Are the tenants entitled to a suppression order?

The tenants have requested suppression of their names and identifying details.
Section 95A(1) RTA provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. However, under section 95A(4) RTA, the Tribunal may, on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that the name or any identifying particulars of any party not be published.
The tenants have not succeeded with their claim so are not automatically entitled to suppression. However, I consider that publication of their names would be unfairly prejudicial to the tenants and not in the public interest for the following reasons: I am satisfied on the evidence that the tenants have been exemplary tenants and termination of the tenancy is not due to any breach of their obligations to which the public should be alerted; I accept that the tenants’ application was made in good faith on the basis that they believed the notice to be retaliatory and that they were entitled to more notice; the effect of publication of their names could unfairly prejudice their attempt to find another tenancy, in circumstances where they have been good tenants. That would be an unfair outcome and suppression is granted. K Stirling, 01 August 2025

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
Baseden Property Management Limited As Agent For Pao Chu Hsu is granted possession of the premises at [Tenancy address suppressed] at 11.59pm on Wednesday 6 August 2025.
The tenants’ application for an order declaring that the termination notice was retaliatory is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone conference, with Mr Baseden representing the landlord.
This tenancy commenced on 1 August 2021 for a fixed term. The fixed term has been renewed several times with the last renewal ending on 26 July 2025.
On 18 June 2025, the landlord emailed the tenants advising that the owner had decided not to renew the tenancy for a further term. This was followed by a formal notice sent by email on 19 June 2025 in which the landlord confirmed that the lease would end on 26 July 2025. The landlord recorded that the tenants had been excellent tenants and the landlord was more than happy to provide a glowing reference.
Subsequently, the tenants requested a three-month extension of the lease to give them further time to find a new home and vacate. They operate a business from the premises (with the landlord’s consent) and noted that it would be extremely difficult to find a new home to meet their residential and business needs in such a short time frame of just over a month. The landlord would not agree to an extension.
The tenants also put the landlord on notice that they believed they were entitled to 90 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy. The landlord replied by email on 27 June 2025 advising that “the notice was given within the effective period, which starts on the 90 th day before the fixed term expiry and ends on the 21 st day before the fixed term” ends. They also attached a link to the Tenancy Services webpage explaining the rules for ending a tenancy when the fixed term expires. Does the landlord’s notice comply with the RTA?
Section 60A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) was amended with effect from 30 January 2025. Section 60A(1) provides that on the expiry of a fixed- term tenancy of more than 90 days, the tenancy continues as a periodic tenancy with the same terms as the terms contained in the expired tenancy so far as those terms are consistent with a periodic tenancy. However, section 60A(2)(c) provides that the tenancy does not continue as a periodic tenancy if within the effective period, either party gives to the other party written notice of their intention not to continue with the tenancy.
The effective period is the period that starts on the 90th day before the date on which the tenancy expires and ends on the 21st day before that date. See section 60A(2A).
In other words, section 60A allows a landlord to give a unilateral notice not to continue the tenancy on the expiry of the fixed term. This provision was repealed from 11 February 2021. However, it was reintroduced with effect on 30 January 2025. Therefore, the landlord’s notice complies with the RTA. Is the landlord’s notice retaliatory?
The tenants claim the notice given by the landlord not to continue with the tenancy after the fixed term expired was retaliatory. Just prior to the landlord’s notice, the tenants had asked the landlord to repair the driveway at the property. They had also asked for a renewal on the basis that the rent not be increased as proposed by the landlord. The parties could not agree on these matters and the tenants claim that the landlord’s decision not to continue the tenancy was a direct and retaliatory reaction to their requests. They seek a declaration that the notice is retaliatory and of no effect. However, they indicated at the hearing that they were not attempting to prevent the owner from dealing with the premises as she wished but they would like further notice. Given the length of the tenancy, the fact that they operate a business from the premises, have made improvements to, and taken good care of the property, they consider that an extension of the notice period for at least another month would be fair.
Section 54 RTA sets out the grounds that must be met before the Tribunal may declare a termination notice retaliatory. The tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. However, section 54(1) states: This section applies in relation to a notice given by a landlord terminating the tenancy, being a notice that complies with the requirements of section 51 RTA. Section 51 prescribes the notice that may be given by parties in a periodic tenancy only. For example, it allows a landlord to give a 90 day notice to terminate a periodic tenancy for no reason and a 42 day notice to terminate a periodic tenancy in specified situations.
This tenancy was not a periodic tenancy when the landlord gave the tenants notice not to continue the tenancy, and the notice was not given under section 51 but under s60A(2)(c). Therefore, the Tribunal cannot consider whether it was retaliatory. For that reason, the tenants’ claim must fail and is dismissed.

Is the landlord entitled to possession of the premises?

The landlord has applied for possession of the premises following the termination of the tenancy.
The tenancy ended on 26 July 2025, which is less than 90 days ago. The requirements of section 64(1) of the RTA are satisfied and the landlord is entitled to a possession order.
The tenants were unaware that the landlord could terminate their tenancy on less than 90 days’ notice. That is understandable. There have been numerous amendments to the RTA over the years and until 30 January 2025, a landlord could not unilaterally end a fixed term tenancy on the expiry of the term. I also accept that the tenants made their application under s54 in good faith believing that the notice was retaliatory. Had their tenancy been periodic, they may well have succeeded with their claim. They have advised that they have largely packed up their belongings but ask for some further time until the end of August to vacate as they have not secured a new tenancy yet. The landlord has undertaken to obtain instructions from the owner but seeks a possession order effective immediately. He is however hopeful that the owner may agree to some extra time and delay enforcement of a possession order, given that the tenants have been long term, exemplary tenants.
Under s64, where the landlord has proved they are entitled to possession of the premises following the termination of a tenancy, the Tribunal must make an order granting possession of the premises to the landlord.
After careful consideration, I am delaying possession for a short period which I consider is fair and reasonable because of the following factors: The tenants advise that they have largely packed their belongings and fully intend to make every effort to vacate the premises; This has been a long term tenancy of almost 4 years; Notice to end the tenancy was given towards the end of the effective period which has been a shock to the tenants and gave them minimal time to find an alternative tenancy and vacate. The possession order will take effect at 11.59pm on Wednesday 6 August 2025.

Are the tenants entitled to a suppression order?

The tenants have requested suppression of their names and identifying details.
Section 95A(1) RTA provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. However, under section 95A(4) RTA, the Tribunal may, on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that the name or any identifying particulars of any party not be published.
The tenants have not succeeded with their claim so are not automatically entitled to suppression. However, I consider that publication of their names would be unfairly prejudicial to the tenants and not in the public interest for the following reasons: I am satisfied on the evidence that the tenants have been exemplary tenants and termination of the tenancy is not due to any breach of their obligations to which the public should be alerted; I accept that the tenants’ application was made in good faith on the basis that they believed the notice to be retaliatory and that they were entitled to more notice; the effect of publication of their names could unfairly prejudice their attempt to find another tenancy, in circumstances where they have been good tenants. That would be an unfair outcome and suppression is granted. K Stirling, 01 August 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5304013 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5304013 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the landlord entitled to possession of the premises?

Are the tenants entitled to a suppression order?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Is the landlord entitled to possession of the premises?

Are the tenants entitled to a suppression order?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions