What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5313620 about?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply.

How much money was awarded in case 5313620?

2. It Is Declared That The Weekly Am…: $675.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5313620?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5313620?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12664026-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5313620 about?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply.

How much money was awarded in case 5313620?

2. It Is Declared That The Weekly Am…: $675.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5313620?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5313620?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12664026-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 25, 7 Northlake Drive, Wanaka, Wanaka 9305 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5313620 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5313620. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
2. It is declared that the weekly amount of rent agreed for the premises is	$675.00		2. It is declared that the weekly amount of rent agreed for the premises is

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5313620. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
2. It is declared that the weekly amount of rent agreed for the premises is	$675.00		2. It is declared that the weekly amount of rent agreed for the premises is

Order

No suppression orders apply.
It is declared that the weekly amount of rent agreed for the premises is $675.
The tenant’s application for a refund of overpaid rent is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
The tenants have applied for an order declaring that the rent for the premises is $675 per fortnight. They have been paying rent of $675 per week and also seek an order for a refund of overpaid rent. The landlord argues that the parties clearly entered a tenancy agreement to let the premises for weekly rent of $675 and seeks a declaration accordingly from the Tribunal. Background facts
The tenants are a couple from Australia, who have moved to New Zealand for a temporary stay. They advised the landlord in their application for a tenancy on 3 April 2025 that they both operate mobile businesses earning reliable income to cover rent and expenses. They stated that they were taking the opportunity to spend some time in NZ to enjoy snowboarding and the outdoors.
Before applying for this tenancy, the tenants applied for another property listed by the landlords and advertised at $750/week. The landlords advised that the property was already taken and offered them a property advertised at $895/week. The tenants replied on 3 April 2025 advising that this was too expensive and their limit was $750.
On 16 April, the tenants applied for this property which was advertised on Realestate.co.nz at $675/week.
On 22 April, the tenants sent the landlord an email acknowledging that the rental market was competitive and reiterating that they would like to make this property their home. They also stated: “To strengthen our application, we are happy to offer an additional three weeks’ rent upfront (on top of the standard deposit/bond) ...” The landlord replied by email the same day: “Please note, we do not require any more $ than the standard terms. 4 weeks rent for bond +2 weeks rent in advance.” This reflects sections 18 and 23 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) which prohibits a landlord from requiring more than 4 weeks rent as bond and 2 weeks rent in advance.
On 28 April, the tenants sent the landlord (Kim Stewart) a WhatsApp message attaching screen shots from 2 different sites stating the rent for the property. The message read: “Also would you be able to clarify how much rent is as on realestate.co.nz it says rent is $675 weekly but on the tenant.co it says rent is $685 fortnightly.” The screen shots provided in evidence displayed the different rent amounts with the realestate.co.nz page stating rent is “675 per week” and the tenant.co page stating rent is “$685 fortnightly.” Ms Stewart replied immediately saying: “price is $675 :)” The tenants replied to this with a “thumbs up” emoji.
At the hearing, the tenants argued that Ms Stewart’s reply did not clarify whether this was the weekly or fortnightly rate. However, they did not seek further clarification from her. The landlord maintains that the obvious interpretation of the reply is that the advertisement which says $675 per week is the correct amount. Also, they confirmed at the hearing that the realestate.co.nz site was the site advertising the premises. The tenant.co site is not for advertising and is the portal/platform used by the landlord for tenancy documentation.
On 29 April, the tenants messaged the landlord asking if rent included water and electricity. The landlord confirmed by return: “..no charge for water...the internet of $100/month is included in the weekly rent.”
On 3 May, both parties signed the tenancy agreement which contained the following section regarding tenancy costs:
The tenancy commenced on 20 May 2025 for a fixed term expiring on 16 December 2025.
Prior to the tenants signing the agreement and in response to a message from the tenants, the landlord confirmed that they would need to pay the bond of $2,700 on the day the agreement was signed and two weeks rent in advance of $1,350 was payable on move in day.
The landlord provided a copy of their account showing funds transferred by the tenants. On 9 May the landlord received $2,700 from the tenants with the reference “bond.” On 19 May the landlord received $1,350 from the tenants with the reference “2 weeks rent.”
The landlord entered the rent and bond details into the tenancy platform they were using to manage their tenancies. It automatically generated a bond summary document sent to the tenants which records weekly rent of $337.50 and a bond payment of $2,700.
At this stage, the tenants say that they believed rent was $337.50 per week or $675/fortnight based on the tenancy agreement and the bond summary. They also understood that the landlord required fortnightly payments. The landlord confirmed that they did not check the bond summary and had they done so, they would have noticed the error. However, they submit that all the communications before the tenancy agreement was signed show the rent payable was $675/week.
Having received $1,350 as two weeks in advance to cover 20 May to 2 June, the landlords were expecting another payment for fortnightly rent of $1,350 on 3 June. The tenants did not make the payment due and the landlord contacted them. It was then that the tenants advised that they were under the impression that $675 was 2 weeks rent. The parties discussed the matter and the landlord confirmed that rent was $675/week to be paid fortnightly in advance. Ms Stewart noted that the bond paid was equivalent to 4 weeks’ rent and the payment of $1,350 for 2 weeks rent in advance also shows that rent was $675/week. She also referred to the Whats App message on 28 April in which she confirmed that the weekly rent of $675 was the correct amount.

TENANCY COSTS

Rent $675.00 1(j) Bond $2,700.00 Rent frequency Fortnightly 1(k) Rent in advance $1,350.00 Next rent payment date Move in total $4,050.00

The tenants paid the missing rent and continued to pay $1,350 fortnightly for rent. They lodged this application on 19 August 2025. Summary of tenants’ case
The tenancy agreement says rent is $675 and the frequency is fortnightly. A plain reading of the tenancy agreement supports a view that the rent is $675/fortnight or $337.50/week. This is further supported by the bond summary document which states that rent is $337.50/week.
The landlord’s reply on 28 April to their enquiry about the two websites showing different rent amounts is unclear because it does not stipulate whether rent is weekly or fortnightly. While the tenants did not seek further clarification at that point, they believe that the subsequent tenancy documentation clarified the position.
They did not raise any issue about the bond amount being more than 4 weeks rent because they did not know that the RTA prohibited a bond exceeding that amount. They also say that they paid $1,350 for 2 weeks rent in advance because they understood this to mean that the landlord could charge two fortnightly payments in advance and say they were never told otherwise.
They subsequently paid $1,350/fortnight because they allege the landlord was stern and intimidating, and insisted that this was the correct amount. They say that they feared they might lose their accommodation if they challenged the issue. They only filed these proceedings once someone told them about the Tenancy Tribunal for resolving disputes.
The landlord did not seek to amend the tenancy agreement nor require a new agreement to record the rent at $675/week.
In response to the landlord’s submission that the tenants knew the market and had been looking for properties in the price range near $750 per week, they say they looked at a wide range of properties including at the lower end of the scale for $300 per week. They agreed that one of these lower priced properties was located between Wanaka and Cardrona and was a one bedroom/one bathroom property not comparable to this property in central Wanaka with two bedrooms/two bathrooms.
The tenants claim is based on misrepresentation and inducement into a contract at an incorrect amount as stated in the tenancy agreement and bond summary. Summary of landlord’s case
The landlords emphasize that the tenants originally applied for another property advertised at $750/week and they believe that the tenants were well aware of the rent market for a property of this calibre in Wanaka. The landlords provided evidence of other comparable properties in Wanaka and the rents payable. The tenants also made it clear to the landlords that their rent limit was $750/week.
In their communications, the tenants offered to pay extra rent up front to secure a tenancy. The landlords told them very clearly in an email on 22 April that they did not require more than the standard terms and specified that this was 4 weeks rent for bond and 2 weeks rent in advance. Therefore, the tenants evidence, that they did not query the alleged unlawful amounts demanded in the tenancy agreement because they were unaware or not told of the requirements, is not credible. Also, the tenants recorded the payment of $1,350 as “2 weeks rent” on the bank transfer documents.
The tenants paid the correct amount as soon as the landlord asked them to and did not raise any further issue until filing this application almost 3 months later.
The property was always advertised at $675/week on the advertising site realestate.co.nz. The tenant.co site is not an advertising site but a portal/platform for tenancy documentation.
Ms Stewart says by replying “$675” to the tenant’s inquiry on 28 April about 2 different prices for the property, it is obvious that this refers to the webpage that says “$675 per week” not the webpage that says “$685 fortnightly.”
The landlord acknowledges that they made an error when drafting the tenancy agreement by failing to state that the weekly rent was $675 which they required the tenants to pay in fortnightly instalments of $1,350. However, they say prior communications and other clauses in the agreement regarding bond and rent in advance made this clear. Tenants’ claim of misrepresentation
The law regarding misrepresentation is now largely codified in sections 35 and 37 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA), although the common law remains relevant. Under s35 CCLA, if a party (party A) to a contract has been induced to enter it by a misrepresentation, whether innocent or fraudulent, made by another party (part B) to the contract, party A is entitled to damages from that party B in the same manner and to the same extent as if the representation were a term of the contract that has been broken.
The representation must be one of fact, not opinion. The representation must be false, and it must relate to a matter of present or past facts, including “half- truths”, not one which relates to the future. See the commentary in Gault on Commercial Law 1 and the Court of Appeal decision in Savill v NZI Finance Ltd. 2 1 Gault on Commercial Law (online looseleaf ed, Thomson Reuters)
In order to determine whether there has been a misrepresentation, it is necessary to look at the tenancy agreement and interpret the wording and meaning to ascertain whether the landlord misrepresented to the tenant that the rent was $675/fortnight. It is also necessary to determine whether the Tribunal should consider pre-contract communications and post contract conduct by the parties to aid interpretation of the agreement and whether there has been a misrepresentation. Law on interpretation
The interpretation of a contract requires Courts to ascertain the meaning which the document would convey to a reasonable person having all the background knowledge which would reasonably be available to the parties in the situation in which they were in at the time of the contract 3 . This approach recognises that a person should be held to the bargain actually reached and not what they thought was the bargain. This is particularly the case where parties negotiate their positions and reduce their bargaining to writing.
A fundamental principle of contract interpretation is that words should be given their natural and ordinary meaning. This reflects the commonsense proposition that we do not easily accept that people have made linguistic mistakes, particularly in formal documents.
There are also a range of established principles and rules (canons of construction) that courts have traditionally used to interpret legal texts and contracts. They help judges determine the meaning of unclear or ambiguous language in legal documents. In the past, much reliance was placed on the “canons of construction” and a rigid approach taken. However, the Supreme Court justices France J, Glazebrook J and Winkelmann CJ, in a paper on contract construction have said: 4 Canons of construction may well have been too rigidly applied in the past. On the other hand, a “common sense” approach can lead to differing results, depending on the “sense” of a particular judge which may in fact not be “common”. Arguably, at least some of the so-called canons of construction in fact reflect a common understanding of how we use words. Using the canons may thus in some cases give some structure to the enquiry without disregarding common sense.
What can be taken from this is that the canons of construction remain useful but we should not adopt a slavish approach towards them. Some of the canons that are relevant here include: 2 Savill v NZI Finance Ltd [1990] 3 NZLR 135 3 Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 WLR 896 (HL) 4 https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/publications/speeches-and-papers/contractual- interpretation#_bookmark4 a. Internal conflicts: where there is conflict between 2 provisions in a contract, the court reads down the apparent scope of one to resolve it. In this case , the contract refers to the rent of $675 and frequency as fortnightly. In conflict with this the 2 weeks rent in advance is stated as $1,350 and the 4 weeks bond is stated as $2,700; b. Presumption against redundancy: every word is presumed to have meaning and should not be rendered superfluous. Therefore the fact that the contract refers to the amounts for rent in advance and bond must be considered; c. Contra proferentem rule: If the contract is ambiguous it should be interpreted against the party who drafted it; d. Commercial sense: Courts strive for an interpretation that is reasonable and aligns with commercial sense; e. The whole contract must be considered.
There is also authority that pre-contractual negotiations and communications between the parties may be considered as an aid to contract interpretation. In Vector Gas Ltd v Bay of Plenty Energy Ltd 5 , Blanchard J considered that evidence of prior negotiations was admissible but only in order to establish the commercial purpose of the contract, its genesis, the background context, and market in which the parties were operating and its subject matter. He reserved his position on how much further the Courts should go towards admitting evidence of negotiations for the light they may shed on the objective intention of the parties.
Tipping J approached the issue on the basis that relevance was the guiding principle, in accordance with s 7 of the Evidence Act 2006 (EA) 6 . He said: Whereas evidence of the objective content of negotiations is inadmissible on account of its irrelevance, evidence of facts, circumstances and conduct attending the negotiations is admissible if it is capable of shedding objective light on meaning”.
In Firm PI Ltd v Zurich Australian Insurance 7 , the Supreme Court explained that in relation to “background knowledge,” there was no conceptual limit on what could be regarded as “background” although it had to be “background that a 5 Vector Gas Ltd v Bay of Plenty Energy Ltd [2010] NZSC 5. 6 Section 7 Evidence Act 2006 says: Fundamental principle that relevant evidence admissible (1) All relevant evidence is admissible in a proceeding except evidence that is— (a) inadmissible under this Act or any other Act; or (b) excluded under this Act or any other Act. (2) Evidence that is not relevant is not admissible in a proceeding. (3) Evidence is relevant in a proceeding if it has a tendency to prove or disprove anything that is of consequence to the determination of the proceeding. 7 Firm PI Ltd v Zurich Australian Insurance [2014] NZSC 147 reasonable person would regard as relevant. Accordingly, the context provided by the contract as a whole and any relevant background informs meaning.”
The Supreme Court in Bathurst 8 in reviewing the law said in applying section 7 EA, evidence is relevant and therefore admissible: “if it has a tendency to prove or disprove anything of consequence to determining the meaning that the contractual document would convey to a reasonable person having all the background knowledge reasonably available to the parties in the position they were in at the time of the contract.”
Evidence as to what a party intended or meant is not relevant where that evidence was not declared to the other party at the time the contract was formed. This is because it is not evidence that was available to the notional reasonable person having all the information that was available to the parties at the time of formation of the contract. However, if the evidence shows what a party intended the words to mean and that this was communicated, it may tend to show a common mutual understanding as to the meaning of the contract.
In relation to the relevance of subsequent conduct by the parties, in Gibbons Holdings Ltd v Wholesale Distributors Ltd 9 , four judges said that evidence of subsequent conduct was admissible in order to interpret a contract. It is a matter of common sense that how parties later treat their contractual obligations and act them out has a bearing on what the objective intention was. The Judges differed on whether both parties needed to conduct themselves in a common way or whether it was sufficient that only one did.
In Bathurst, the Supreme Court clarified that: cases of subsequent conduct will be few; generally, conduct that occurs post-contract will be unlikely to be admissible; there is the danger that later conduct is simply self-serving conduct, and admissibility of this sort of evidence will add time and cost and so care needs to be taken about it.
Section 97 RTA contains specific provisions regarding the admissibility of evidence in Tenancy Tribunal proceedings which is broader than the EA which must be borne in mind. Section 97(4) states: Subject to section 89, the Tribunal may call for and receive as evidence any statement, document, information, matter, or thing that in its opinion may assist it to deal effectually with the matters before it, whether or not the same would be admissible in a court of law. 8 Bathurst Resources Ltd and another v L & M Coal Holdings Ltd [2021] NZSC 85 9 Gibbons Holdings Ltd v Wholesale Distributors Ltd [2007] NZSC 37 Discussion and findings
After carefully considering all the available evidence and the legal principles that apply, I am satisfied that the tenancy agreement was intended to provide that the weekly rent was $675, payable by fortnightly instalments of $1,350 and this is what was agreed by the parties. The following factors are persuasive in reaching that conclusion: a. The rental market and rents charged was known or ought to have been known to the tenants. It is simply not conceivable that a property of this calibre and location would be rented for $337.50/week based on the evidence of the properties the tenants applied for and the market evidence provided by the landlord; b. There was clear advertising of this property at $675/week and the tenants applied for the property which was advertised at this rate on realestate.co.nz; c. When the tenant presented two website screenshots stating different rents payable for the property and asked the landlord which one applied, the landlord’s response clearly chooses one of the options. In responding with “price is $675 :)” I accept the landlord was choosing the screen shot which says rent is $675 per week not the screen shot which says rent is $685 fortnightly. Furthermore, the tenants replied to the landlord with a “thumbs up” emoji. If, as they allege at the hearing, the landlord’s response was not clear, this begs the question: Why did they not ask her to clarify whether this was weekly or fortnightly; d. In email exchanges before the tenancy agreement was signed the landlord explicitly rejected the tenants’ offer to pay extra amounts to secure the tenancy with the landlord confirming that they would not require the tenants to pay any more than 4 weeks rent for bond and 2 weeks rent in advance. These are the maximum amounts permitted by sections 18 and 23 RTA. The tenants’ submission that they were not made aware of these limits is therefore not credible; e. The tenants paid the bond and rent in advance requested by the landlord without once questioning the amounts and why they might have exceeded the maximum amounts represented by the landlords. The reference given to the bank transfer of $1,350 by the tenants was “2 weeks rent” indicates that they knew the rent was $675/week; f. The tenants paid the correct rent amount at the rate of $1,350/fortnight as soon as the landlord asked them to and did not raise any further issue until filing this application 3 months later.
The landlord’s drafting of the tenancy agreement was careless. However, I find that the weight of the evidence, including pre-contract communications, convey to a reasonable person having all the background knowledge reasonably available to the parties in the position they were in at the time of the contract, that the rent agreed for this tenancy was $675 per week payable by fortnightly instalments in advance of $1,350. The post contract conduct of the tenants (paying the amounts requested by the landlord which reflected rent calculated at $675/week) also supports that finding.
For the reasons given, the tenants’ claim for misrepresentation and a refund of rent is not proved and is dismissed.
As the tenants have not succeeded with their claim, they are not entitled to suppression of their names and identifying details nor to reimbursement of the filing fee. The landlord filed a cross claim and would ordinarily be entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee where they have wholly succeeded in the proceedings. However, the cross claim was in effect a defence to the tenant’s claim and the landlord’s inaccurate drafting of the tenancy agreement was the cause of the issue. In those circumstances, reimbursement of the filing fee paid by the landlord is not awarded.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5313620 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 25, 7 Northlake Drive, Wanaka, Wanaka 9305

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5313620 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 25, 7 Northlake Drive, Wanaka, Wanaka 9305

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

TENANCY COSTS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

TENANCY COSTS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions