What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5308932 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 5308932?

Compensation: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Unlawful Residential Premises – Paym…: $18,440.00 awarded to tenant

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5308932?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12681278-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5308932 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 5308932?

Compensation: $2,500.00 awarded to tenant; Unlawful Residential Premises – Paym…: $18,440.00 awarded to tenant

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5308932?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12681278-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 87 Girrahween Drive, Totara Vale, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5308932 — Leaks

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5308932 — net $20,940.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Unlawful residential premises – payment of 50% of rent	$18,440.00	Unlawful residential premises – payment of 50% of rent
Compensation for failure to maintain re water ingress	$2,500.00	Compensation for failure to maintain re water ingress
Net award	$20,940.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$20,940.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5308932 — net $20,940.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Unlawful residential premises – payment of 50% of rent	$18,440.00	Unlawful residential premises – payment of 50% of rent
Compensation for failure to maintain re water ingress	$2,500.00	Compensation for failure to maintain re water ingress
Net award	$20,940.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$20,940.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Renee Tania Johnson must pay [The tenant/s] $20,940.00 immediately as set out below:

Reasons

Introduction

[The tenant/s] lived in the lower level of 2/87 Girrahween Drive, Totara Vale (the Premises) owned by Renee Tania Johnson (the Landlord) for slightly less than two years.
The Tenants says the lower level she rented was not a lawful residential premises. The Tenant says while she lived in the Premises, there were several occasions when it flooded and as a result, her belongings were damaged. The Tenant also says the Premises did not meet the ventilation standards under the Healthy Homes Standards (HHS).
The Landlord accepts she had not obtained approval from Auckland Council for the Premises to be rented out as a separate household unit, and therefore, that it was an unlawful residential premise. However, the Landlord says she was not aware it was unlawful until near the end of the tenancy and therefore she should not be required to pay the Tenant all rent paid during the tenancy. The Landlord also denies failing to maintain the premises, and denies that the Premises did not meet the HHS ventilation standards.
The issues I have to determine are: a. Given it is not in dispute that the Premises was an unlawful residential premise during the tenancy, should the Landlord be ordered to repay all rent paid by the Tenant? b. Did the Landlord fail to remedy issues with water ingress into the Premises? If so, is the Tenant entitled to compensation? c. Did the Landlord fail to ensure the Premises met the HHS with respect to ventilation? d. Should either party’s name be suppressed?
On 30 October 2025, the Tenant and the Landlord attended the in-person hearing. Both parties were provided with the opportunity to file (specified) evidence referred to during the hearing by 4pm on 30 October 2025. Both parties filed the evidence referred to and that evidence has been received. 1 The Tribunal’s approach to the issues
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). 1 The evidence from the Tenant was photographs showing water damage to her bed. The evidence from the Landlord were two LIM reports.
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards. That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim establish their claim “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fraction 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. Given it is not in dispute that the Premises was an unlawful residential premise during the tenancy, should the Landlord be ordered to repay all rent paid by the Tenant?

THE LAW

The Tribunal has the power to make a range of orders if the evidence establishes that the premises are, or were at any material time, “unlawful residential premises”. 2
Where the Tribunal declares the residential premises to be unlawful, the Tribunal may order the return of all rent paid by the tenant, although it may deduct an amount from that sum if, in the special circumstances of the case, it would be fair to do so.
The public policy behind the introduction of s78A was to discourage landlords from renting out properties that were, for example, unconsented or unlawful and had therefore never been subject to the need to meet legal requirements to ensure their safe and healthy occupation by tenants.
The Tribunal has on many prior occasions considered whether or not premises are unlawful and three broad (though non-exhaustive) categories have been identified: 3 a. Unconsented premises: meaning premises where there has been no building consent or resource consent for the premises at all. 2 Section 78A of the Act. 3 Tenant v Presland and Co Trustee Company [2021] NZTT 4290197 at [94]. b. Premises where an abatement notice or dangerous and insanitary building notice has been issued by Council. c. Premises where garages, basement conversions or parts of premises that are part of a larger household unit have been converted for residential use and then rented out as a separate household unit, without Council consent as to the change of use.
This case concerns category (c) listed above: the Tenant rented the lower level of a two-storey single household unit.

THE FACTS OF THIS CASE

In August 2006, the Landlord purchased the two-storey attached dwelling located at 2/87 Girrahween Drive, Totara Vale (the Property). 4
At the time of purchase, the Land Information Memorandum issued 28 June 2006 (2006 LIM) recorded a permit was issued in 1973 for drainage and new floor bearers and concrete floor in the basement. 5 The 2006 LIM refers to this as the “Basement Development.” The 2006 LIM records there were no known building consents on the property.
The 2006 LIM does not record consent for a (full) bathroom or kitchen in the lower level of the Property, nor any consent to change of use of the Property.
A “Safe and Sanitary” Report dated 6 May 2003 was also provided to the Landlord at the time of purchase. It records, “The dwelling is a timber framed two bedroom house constructed over a full height block basement, which houses a single car garage, laundry, WC with WHB and a utility/storage area.” 6
The Landlord lived in the upper level of the Property from 2006 until 2018. During that period, the Premises that the Tenant later occupied was rented to another tenant while the Landlord lived in the upper level of the Property.
When the Landlord moved out in 2018, the upper level of the Property was rented to another tenant.
In January 2023, during the Auckland Anniversary Weekend floods, the lower level of the Property suffered flood damage. In the months that followed, the Landlord carried out renovations to the lower level, including to the bathroom and kitchen. After renovations were completed in September 2023, the Landlord re-rented the Premises to the Tenant.
The Tenant moved into lower level of the Property from 12 November 2023. 4 The Property’s legal address is 2/14 Ellice Road Glenfield 1310. The Property is a cross lease and is attached to 1/14 Ellice Road Glenfield 1310. The Landlord’s Property’s driveway access is from Girrahween Drive, therefore the Property uses the address 2/87 Girrahween Drive, Totara Vale. 5 Land Information Memorandum dated 28 June 2006. 6 “Safe and Sanitary” report dated 6 May 2003, page 2 at 4.1.
At the time that the Tenant lived in the Premises, the layout of the Property was as follows: the upper level of the dwelling (which the Tenant did not occupy) consisted of two bedrooms, living room, dining area, kitchen, bathroom and separate toilet. The lower level of the dwelling consisted of one large room with open-plan kitchen, bathroom with a toilet, garage, and a separate room accessed externally which was used as a laundry.
The Tenant occupied the lower level of the dwelling, with exclusive right to the use all rooms on the lower level except the laundry room, which was used by tenants occupying the upper level.
The total rent paid by the Tenant throughout the tenancy was $36,880.00. 7

APPLICATION AND ANALYSIS

At the hearing, the Landlord accepted she had not made an application to the Council for change of use prior to renting out the upper and lower levels as two separate flats. 8 The Landlord stated she was not aware of any work to create a firewall between the upper and lower levels of the Property. 9 In short, the Landlord accepts that at the time the Tenant occupied the lower level of the Property, the Premises was an unlawful residential premise.
As it is not in dispute, I find the Premises was an unlawful residential premise for the entire tenancy.
I turn to consider whether the Tribunal should order the Landlord to pay the whole of the sum found to have been paid by way of rent, or, whether that amount should be less, having regard to the special circumstances of the matter, including the nature of the premises. 10 7 The Tenant occupied the Premises from 12 November 2023 until 17 September 2025. From 12 November 2023 until 29 July 2025, the rent was $385 per week, therefore the Tenant paid rent of $34,340 for that period. From 30 July 2025 until the end of the tenancy, the rent was $350 per week, therefore the Tenant paid rent of $2,450 for that period. Adding those two periods together, total rent paid over the entire tenancy was $36,880. 8 Schedule of the Building (Specified Systems, Change the Use, and Earthquake-prone Buildings) Regulations 2005 designates premises for different uses: Sleeping Single Home (SH) for detached dwellings where people live as a single household or family, including attached self- contained spaces such as granny flats when occupied by a member of the same family, and, Sleeping Residential (SR) for attached and multi-unit residential dwellings, including household units attached to spaces or dwellings with the same or other uses. A change in use from SH to SR would mean the Premises would change from being one “household unit” as an SH, to two (or more) “household units” as an SR, as defined by the Building Code cl.A2. 9 If the Premises has more than one household unit it must comply with clause C6.1(c) of the Building Code which states: Structural systems in buildings must be constructed to maintain structural stability during fire so that there is a low probability of direct or consequential damage to adjacent household units or other property. 10 Section 78A(4)(a)(i)-(ii) of the Act
The Landlord says she should not be required to pay the Tenant the whole of the sum found to have been paid by way of rent due to special circumstances, including that: a. The Landlord believed the Premises could be lawfully rented out as a separate unit and only became aware consent to change of use had not been obtained in August 2025 when the new purchaser’s building inspector raised the issue; b. The Premises is not structurally unsound; c. A Land Information Management report dated 17 September 2025 (2025 LIM), issued prior to the Property’s recent sale, now records there are unconsented sanitary fixtures, including a shower, basin, toilet and kitchen sink, in the basement level of the dwelling. 11
As to the first circumstance (a), it is incumbent upon the Landlord to ensure a property is legally compliant before renting it out. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. I place no weight on this circumstance.
As to the second circumstance (b), no evidence was produced to support the submission that the Premises is structurally sound, however nor was there evidence to the contrary. The Landlord conceded no work had been undertaken to install a firewall or ensure compliance with the Building Act. I place no weight on this circumstance either.
As to the third circumstance (c), the notation within the 2025 LIM does not remedy the unlawfulness of the premises. While the notation ensures the future buyer is aware of the unconsented nature of the sanitary fixtures, it goes no further. I place no weight on this circumstance either.
What is helpful is to consider previous Tribunal decisions which, when considering what constitutes “special circumstances,” have weighed the following factors: 12 a. The landlord’s motivation for renting the property, and their conduct during the tenancy. b. The tenant’s motivation for renting the property and bringing the claim, and the length of time they lived in the property. c. The benefits the landlord received in renting the property. d. The benefits the tenant received in renting the property. 11 Land Information Memorandum dated 17 September 2025 at p.9. 12 AD v Gao [2021] NZTT North Shore 4260212, at [71] None v None [2021] NZTT [Event location suppressed] 4295031. e. The seriousness of the regulatory breaches making the premises unlawful. f. Any other breaches by the landlord. g. Any detriment or loss the tenant suffered. h. The purpose of s 78A in ensuring landlords do not unfairly profit from unlawful premises. i. The public interest in discouraging unlawful tenancies. j. Any other compensation or exemplary damages that are ordered.
In this case, I accept the Landlord was not motivated to rent the Property unlawfully, but that she did so without knowledge of the need for consent(s) and structural requirements.
I also accept the Tenant was not maliciously motivated in bringing this claim and is genuinely concerned to ensure the Property is not rented out to others without the necessary consent(s).
The regulatory breach is serious in that it concerns matters such as the fire safety of any occupant(s) in the Premises, however I accept that this is not a case where the Premises were rented in unsanitary conditions.
The Tenant has suffered loss in respect of water damage to furniture, however that is not a loss that is a direct result of the Premises being unlawful.
There is significant public interest in discouraging unlawful tenancies such as these, in particular, where premises are rented to vulnerable people, who are unlikely to complain during a tenancy.
Taking all of these special circumstances into account, I consider it is appropriate that the Landlord pay less than the whole of the sum found to have been paid by way of rent. In determining how much less, I am assisted by the summary of comparable cases set out in Tenant v Presland and Co Trustee Company. 13
Those cases are: a. Abaid v Mounsouphom, 14 (garage conversion: tenant awarded 50% of rent paid); b. None v None, 15 (separate sleepout not consented for use by Council as a sleepout: tenant awarded 50% of rent paid); 13 [2021] NZTT [Event location suppressed] 4290197 at [94]. 14 [2019] NZTT Manukau 4181975. 15 [2021] NZTT [Event location suppressed] 4295031. c. Haldane v Liu, 16 (conversion of basement into two separate household units: tenant awarded full refund of rent); d. Zowitzkey v Hemmings, 17 (tenant occupied lower level of two story house. Change of use was not consented by Council and the premises did not have a consented kitchen: tenant awarded $7,100); e. Redacted v Kranenberg, 18 (two properties but only consented to be used as one residential dwelling: tenant awarded two thirds of rent paid).
Taking into account the factors listed at [31], and the comparable cases above, I consider it appropriate that the Landlord pay the Tenant 50% of rent paid during the tenancy, being $18,440.
That amount reflects the risk the Landlord placed the Tenant in by failing to ensure the Premises complied with all requirements under the Building Act 1991 (and associated regulations and/or bylaws) before renting out the Premises. It also takes into account that the Landlord was not aware the lower flat could not be rented out as a separate household and that there was no direct loss suffered by the Tenant (issues related to damage from water ingress are addressed separately below). Did the Landlord fail to remedy issues with water ingress into the Premises? If so, is the Tenant entitled to compensation?
The Tenant claims the Landlord breached their obligations to maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair in relation to water entering the Premises which caused damage to the Tenant’s belongings on more than one occasion during the tenancy. 19
The Tenant seeks $5,000 compensation for damage to her belongings.
The Tenant says issues first arose in December 2023, approximately a month after she moved in. The Tenant says water came in through gaps around the door. The Tenant says the Landlord’s contractor carried out works to the door, which seemed to rectify the issue, but only on a temporary basis.
The Tenant says in August 2024, the issue arose again when water was seen running along the beams of the ceiling above a lampshade. The Tenant did not take photographs or videos at the time but says she reported the issue to the Landlord. The Tenant says no action was taken. 16 [2019] NZTT Auckland 4202359, 4212111. 17 [2020] NZTT North Shore 4257512, 4264964. 18 [2021] NZ TT 4298196, 4294929 19 Section 45(1)(b) of the Act.
The Tenant then says in May 2025, water was seen coming into the Premises around a permanently sealed window near her sleeping area. The Tenant says the Landlord’s contractor came out again and did some work to seal the concrete blocks and reseal the window but that he noted it was not a permanent fix.
The Tenant says the worst occasion was in July and August of 2025 when the Tenant woke up in the night to find water dripping down the wall behind her headboard to the carpet, and water beading down a bathroom wall.
In an email sent to the Landlord on 14 July 2025, the Tenant attached photos showing water pooling on the tiled area around the circumference of the lounge/sleeping area.
The Tenant says as result of the Landlord failing to remedy the water ingress issues, the Tenant’s furniture was damaged. The Tenant says in the July 2025 incident, her wooden bed legs were damaged, three rugs had to be thrown away, and two lamps were damaged or became rusty. The Tenant still uses her wooden bed frame but says the remainder of the items were thrown away. The Tenant has not replaced the damaged items but estimates the loss to be $5,000 based on similar items listed for sale.
The Landlord says she responded to the Tenant when alerted to the issues and took all reasonable steps to attempt to remedy the water ingress on each occasion.
I note that the Landlord confirmed that, prior to this tenancy, the Premises were flooded in the 2023 Auckland Anniversary Weekend floods. The 2023 Auckland Anniversary Weekend flooding was so extensive the Landlord carried out extensive renovations to the kitchen and bathroom.
The Landlord says the Tenant did not raise issues with water ingress in December 2023. The Landlord says her complaint at that time was related to slugs entering the basement via gaps in the door. The Landlord says she was not aware of water issues at that time, but her contractor carried out repairs to the door to ensure slugs could no longer enter along the sides of the door.
The Landlord says the first time the Tenant alerted the Landlord to an issue with water coming in was in July 2024 when the Tenant said rain was coming in through a sealed window. The Landlord was travelling for work at the time, but says the Tenant advised she had placed a towel on the windowsill to stop the water and the Tenant would monitor the situation. The Landlord says she had her contractor look at the issue, but no remedial work was carried out as the Tenant had indicated she would monitor it.
The Landlord says around that time, her contractor advised her that the water ingress issue was due to a flaw in the original construction of the dwelling which meant water was coming through the concrete brickwork and it would require major structural work to permanently remedy it. The Landlord says she did not have the funds to undertake such major structural work.
The Landlord says the issue arose again on 4 April 2025 when the Tenant complained that water was again entering the Premises by the sealed window near her sleeping area. The Landlord asked her contractor for a solution that wasn’t major construction. The Landlord’s contractor suggested painting the cement bricks on the exterior to prevent (or reduce the amount of) water coming through them and resealing the window. The Landlord instructed the contractor to undertake that work, and it was completed in May 2025.
In July 2025 there were two further incidents. The Landlord says the first was on 12 July 2025, when the Tenant alerted the Landlord that water had again entered the basement flat. The Landlord was away but arranged for an agent to visit. Following that visit, the Landlord organised the rental of a dehumidifier for three days to help dry out the Premises and the Tenant’s belongings.
The second July 2025 incident was on 29 July 2025, when the Tenant sent the Landlord a text message advising water had, “ingressed into the flat again” and there was, “a new leak from both the ceiling and under the tiles seeping up through the floor.” 20 The Tenant advised that the carpet was wet as were her packed boxes (as she was preparing to move out).
The Landlord was again away but arranged for a friend from her church to visit the Premises the same day. The Landlord again arranged for a dehumidifier to be delivered and rented for a period of 5 days. The Landlord’s friend arranged access for the Tenant to store some of her belongings in the separate laundry area on the lower level, which was dry.
From 30 July 2025, the Landlord reduced the rent from $385 per week to $350 per week, in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the water ingress issues.
I am satisfied the Landlord failed to maintain the Premises to prevent water ingress. I am satisfied the Landlord was aware water ingress was an issue from before the tenancy began because the Premises flooded during the 2023 Auckland Anniversary Weekend floods, and because the 2006 LIM report showed the Premises was located on a flood plain. 21
I am satisfied the Tenant suffered loss as a result of water entering the Premises on four occasions (July 2024, 4 April 2025, 12 July 2025 and 29 July 20 The text message was read aloud by the Landlord during the hearing. The text message was sent on 29 July 2025 at 10:09am. 21 2006 LIM report, attachment “Piped Asset Map.” 2025), however, as the Tenant did not replace the damaged items, and therefore did not suffer a financial loss, the Tenant is not entitled to compensation to replace those items as they have not been replaced. a
I do however consider the Tenant is entitled to general damages for the emotional harm, including the stress of dealing with the water ingress issues as they arose. 22
In the Tribunal decision Penfold-Ulrich & Iu v Parklane Real Estate Limited, 23 the Tribunal set out the following bands for awards for general damages: a. At the lower end of the scale, where a breach causes inconvenience, frustration, annoyance, or disappointment: an award of $200.00 to $2,000.00; b. Where, due to the breach, the party has endured more than inconvenience and a higher level of mental distress such as worry, stress, tension, or anxiety: an award of $2,000.00 to $3,000.00. c. At the upper end of the scale, where the party has experienced hardship, insecurity, humiliation, intimidation, aggravation, or fear: an award of over $3,000.00.
In this case, I am satisfied the Tenant suffered more than inconvenience, and suffered a significant level of mental distress and anxiety. The Tenant described the conditions as having a significant “emotional, psychological and physical impact” and that the ongoing flooding, dampness and mould caused her “severe emotional distress and anxiety.” The Tenant said she suffered sleepless nights during stormy weather, and felt, “profound shame and embarrassment” about her situation. When describing the flooding during the hearing, the Tenant at times found it difficult to speak and became emotionally overwhelmed. I accept that the conditions described by the Tenant would have caused any tenant distress, and accept that in this case, they caused this Tenant significant stress.
While the Landlord provided the Tenant was a rent reduction by $35 per week for the final 7 weeks of the tenancy, a total of $245, I do not consider that sufficient compensation for the level of stress caused.
I consider general damages of $2,500 is appropriate to recognise the nature of the breach, the fact it occurred on four occasions over at least 12 months (July 2024 – July 2025), and that the action taken by the Landlord on each occasion did not remedy the issue. 22 The Tribunal has the jurisdiction to order general damages: Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667. 23 [2025] NZTT 5049208.
I make an order accordingly.

Did the Landlord fail to ensure the Premises met the HHS with respect to ventilation?

The Tenant claims the Landlord breached their obligations under the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). 24 The Tenant says the Landlord has failed to comply with the HHS ventilation standard.
The ventilation standard requires that premises have openable windows in the living room, dining room, kitchen and bedrooms. All habitable rooms in a rental property must have at least one window, door or skylight which opens to the outside and can be fixed in the open position.
In each room, the size of the openable windows, doors and skylights together must be at least 5% of the floor area of that room The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. 25
Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy. For private rentals, such as this tenancy which commenced after 28 August 2022 and before 3 March 2025, the Premises was required to comply within 120 days of its commencement. That is, by 11 March 2024.
The Tenant says the Landlord did not meet the ventilation standards in that two windows in the main living and sleeping area were permanently sealed shut. The Tenant also says the single windows in the bathroom and kitchen did not open wide enough to effectively ventilate and mould would build up in the bathroom, even when using the installed extractor fan.
The Landlord relies on a HHS report completed 11 July 2023 which records that the Premises did comply with all ventilation requirements. The Landlord says the window near the Tenant’s sleeping area was permanently sealed shut because if it were openable, it would create a trip hazard for anyone using the exterior steps (which passed directly by the window). The Landlord says the other window in the living area (near the TV) was openable, however it seemed it was accidentally sealed shut by painters before the Tenant moved in.
The Landlord says the window in the living area must have been accidentally painted shut during renovations in September 2023. The Landlord says soon after the Tenant moved in, she complained that it could not be opened. The 24 Section 45(1)(bb) of the Act. 25 Section 45(1A). Tenant says in December 2023, the Landlord’s contractor planed down the window and removed the paint sealing the window. The Landlord says from that point, the window could be openable.
I am satisfied the bathroom and kitchen had extractor fans which met the minimum defined extraction capacity. 26 I am also satisfied that all habitable rooms in the Premises had at least one window and/or door which opened to the outside and could be fixed in the open position.
It follows that I am not satisfied the Tenant had proved the Landlord failed to meet the HHS ventilation standards.
Even if I found that, for the first few weeks of the tenancy, the lounge/sleeping area did not have an openable window, and therefore that, for that period, the Landlord committed an unlawful act, I would not award exemplary damages as I am satisfied the Landlord did not intentionally fail to meet the standards. I am satisfied the window by the TV was accidentally painted shut, and that it was quickly rectified by the Landlord after the Tenant brought it to her attention.
I dismiss the Tenant’s claim for exemplary damages for failure to meet the HHS ventilation standards. Should either party’s name be suppressed?
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name and/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. 27
The Tribunal may also, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. 28
The Tenant applied for suppression of her name. As the Tenant’s application was substantially successful, the Tenant is entitled to name suppression and I make the order accordingly.
At the hearing, the Landlord stated they did not seek suppression of their name. However, after the hearing, by email to the registry, the Landlord made an 26 HHS report completed 11 July 2023. 27 Section 95A(1) of the Act. 28 Section 95A(4) of the Act. application for suppression of their name on the basis she did not want her name searchable by future employers.
I am mindful that open justice is a fundamental principle in our legal system.
The Landlord’s application for name suppression is declined because: a. It is common for parties appearing before the Tribunal to seek suppression orders but that is not of itself a sufficient reason to make the order. b. No evidence was presented to support the Landlord’s submission that her future employment options would actually be adversely affected, it was merely a concern which would likely exist for all parties appearing before the Tribunal. c. The disputes before me are not unusual or other than the ordinary business of the Tribunal. d. The open justice principle requires the outcome of adjudication to be available to the public; and e. Weighing up the interests of the Landlord and the public interest, the public interest outweighs the Landlord’s interests.
Accordingly, no order is made for suppression of the Landlord’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5308932 — Leaks at Unit/Flat 2, 87 Girrahween Drive, Totara Vale, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5308932 — Leaks at Unit/Flat 2, 87 Girrahween Drive, Totara Vale, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

THE LAW

THE FACTS OF THIS CASE

APPLICATION AND ANALYSIS

Did the Landlord fail to ensure the Premises met the HHS with respect to ventilation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

THE LAW

THE FACTS OF THIS CASE

APPLICATION AND ANALYSIS

Did the Landlord fail to ensure the Premises met the HHS with respect to ventilation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions