What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5315041 about?

The tribunal order states: Yu Sun and Chinho Leung must pay Shelter Realty Limited T/As Harcourts

How much money was awarded in case 5315041?

Break Lease Costs: $598.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,740.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5315041?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5315041?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12567025-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5315041 about?

The tribunal order states: Yu Sun and Chinho Leung must pay Shelter Realty Limited T/As Harcourts

How much money was awarded in case 5315041?

Break Lease Costs: $598.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,740.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5315041?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5315041?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12567025-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 2A Mantra Road, Massey, Auckland 0614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5315041 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5315041 — net $46.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 20.8.2025	$1,740.00	Rent arrears to 20.8.2025
Break lease costs	$598.00	Break lease costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$46.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$46.00

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5315041 — net $46.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 20.8.2025	$1,740.00	Rent arrears to 20.8.2025
Break lease costs	$598.00	Break lease costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$46.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$46.00

Order

Yu Sun and Chinho Leung must pay Shelter Realty Limited T/As Harcourts Shelter Realty As Agent For Zhao And Zhen Holding Ltd $46.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 (BN-00046514) to Shelter Realty Limited T/As Harcourts Shelter Realty As Agent For Zhao And Zhen Holding Ltd immediately.
All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Ms Sun and Mr Leung, the tenants, and Ms Zheng, representing the landlord, attended the hearing. The tenants attended the hearing by video conference whilst the landlord attended the hearing by phone.
The tenants have applied to reduce a fixed-term tenancy.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
Both parties sought to add additional claims at the hearing – the landlord a claim for water rates, and the tenant a claim for compensation. As neither of these respective claims had been included in the parties’ original applications, and because of the scheduled hearing time that was allowed only for the original claims, I did not allow the parties to add any further claims. Burden of proof and evidence
Any party bringing a claim before the Tenancy Tribunal has the burden of proving their claim on the balance of probabilities. They must prove it is more likely than not that their alleged version of events took place. Further, the evidence should be reasonable with no probable defects, such as inconsistency or improbability. The evidence should be consistent and supported by other acceptable evidence.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.”
All the evidence provided has been considered, even if it is not specifically referred to in this decision. Tenants’ Claims Reduction of the fixed-term tenancy
A tenancy agreement is a contract. When parties enter a fixed-term tenancy, they are bound by the terms that they have agreed to. Usually, the term of the contract will be applied strictly. A decision-maker would only interfere with that term in limited circumstances.
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
If the Tribunal reduces a fixed-term tenancy, it may order reasonable compensation to the other party for any loss or damage to the other party from such a reduction of the fixed-term tenancy. See section 66(2) RTA.
The tenants have applied to reduce a fixed-term tenancy, which began on 27 February 2025 and was due to end on 26 February 2026.
The tenants said they had to move to Melbourne, Australia, for work and took on another lease of a property there, which they were paying at the same time as paying rent at this property in Auckland. They explained that, with only one of the tenants being employed, as the other tenant has been unemployed since September 2024, paying rent in two properties has meant spending all their monthly income on rent, and having to deplete their savings to cover their living expenses.
Ms Sun said she had continued paying rent for the Auckland property from February 2025 until June 2025 and then found she was experiencing severe financial hardship from having to pay two rents in both Auckland and Melbourne, which her net salary barely covered, as well as having to use her savings to pay for other living costs.
The tenants indicated that they told the property manager on Wechat on 24 June 2025 that they intended to move to Melbourne and wanted to end the lease early. The tenants said the landlord declined their request to leave the tenancy early then. On 30 June 2025, the tenants emailed the landlord formally requesting to end the tenancy early and said they intended to move out of the property on 30 July 2025. The landlord said they responded on 3 July 2025 that the landlord again declined their request, again citing that moving countries for a job was a personal issue which did not warrant choosing to leave the lease early.
The tenants then emailed the landlord on 30 July 2025 to let them know they had vacated the property on 30 July 2025, had organised professional cleaners to clean the property, had left no damage, and that they then returned the keys to the landlord. The tenants paid rent to 30 July 2025 but made it clear to the landlord they would not pay any more rent after this date. The tenants said they offered to help the landlord to find a new tenant, and to cover costs such as advertising for new tenants, but the landlord had still declined their request to leave the tenancy early.
The landlord said they were shocked to receive the tenants’ email of 30 July 2025 indicating they had vacated the property, as they had not heard back from them since the landlord responded to them on 3 July 2025, and then believed the tenants had abandoned the property. As a result of this, the landlord said they then urgently sought a new tenant to mitigate the landlord’s loss, due to rent not being paid by the tenants from 30 July 2025. The landlord said, when the tenants just stopped paying rent, this caused the owner financial hardship and stress, especially given the tenants left in the middle of the fixed-term. The landlord reported that they found a new tenant through their systems, not by marketing online, given the urgency, and that a new tenant moved into the property on 21 August 2025. The landlord notified the tenant that a new tenant had moved in on 21 August 2025, in an email sent to the tenant only a few days before the hearing. The tenants were very upset that the landlord had not told them about this before this, given their financial hardship and stress about the situation. The landlord said they understood the tenants only wanted to communicate with them at the Tribunal hearing and not before.
While the communication from the landlord about the new tenancy could have been better, I note the landlord also complained that they had not heard back from the tenants after their email response to the tenants on 3 July 2025, nor were they made aware by the tenants of their full financial circumstances or the other tenancy lease in Australia in the tenants’ earlier requests to leave the tenancy early. It appeared that there were communication issues between the parties on both sides.
The fact remains that this was a fixed-term tenancy which neither party is entitled to terminate unless by mutual consent or by order of the Tribunal. The landlord is also under no obligation to consent to a tenant’s request to leave a fixed-term tenancy early.
The tenants provided evidence a few days before the hearing that included their bank statements showing their income and outgoings, information about their travel movements, information confirming their Australian tenancy lease and employment situation in Australia.
One of the tenants, Ms Sun, was offered employment by an Australian company in a letter dated 10 February 2025. She said she received the employment offer the same day of 10 February 2025.
Ms Sun acknowledged that the tenants signed tenancy agreements for the Auckland property and for the Melbourne property on the same day, on 18 February 2025. She confirmed she had signed her employment agreement to work in Melbourne just before signing both tenancy agreements.
When asked why she had entered into a one-year fixed-term tenancy in two countries on the same day, Ms Sun explained that the company for whom she worked in New Zealand had expanded to Australia and had offered her the job in Melbourne. She said the company asked her to take on a tenancy lease in Melbourne so that other new employees of the company could move there also, so she had entered into the Melbourne tenancy lease on this basis, being solely responsible for paying rent at the Melbourne property. She said the other new employees mentioned by her company did not eventuate and she was left with responsibility for both tenancies.
Ms Sun said that she had thought she would be going back and forth between New Zealand and Australia for her work, and that she did not realise she would be spending so much time in Melbourne. She reported that it was not until around March or April 2025 that her company told her they wanted her to stay in Melbourne permanently and they suggested she get out of the tenancy lease in New Zealand. In response to a question about whether she checked with the company when she took the job and entered into a tenancy lease in Melbourne as to their expectations about where she was to live and work, she said she did not check this with her employer at the time.
Ms Sun confirmed that the tenants understood, when signing two one-year fixed-term tenancies, both in Auckland and Melbourne, on the same day, that they would be legally liable for both leases.
The landlord said they were not aware the tenants had also entered into another one-year fixed-term tenancy in Melbourne at the same time as this tenancy agreement, nor that they were experiencing such financial hardship, in the tenants’ earlier requests to leave the tenancy early. The landlord said the tenants only told them they wanted to leave the tenancy early because they were relocating for work. The landlord said they only became aware of these other circumstances when the tenants provided their new evidence only a few days before the hearing, and, had they known this information earlier, they may have had different discussions about ending the lease early.
The tenants believed it was the landlord’s obligation to ask them for any further information about why they wanted to leave the tenancy early, and that the landlord did not ask about this, so they did not provide this information earlier. The landlord countered that, if the tenants were requesting an early lease break, it was their responsibility to provide all relevant information to the landlord.
It is up to a party seeking to leave a fixed-term tenancy contract early to provide all relevant information that would allow the other party to make a fully informed decision in this regard, in my view.

Was the change in circumstances unforeseeable?

In Bond v Tang Invercargill TT 09/583/IN, 25 August 2009, the Tribunal concluded that: The term ‘unforeseen’ is a legal term defined by reference to the reverse (‘foreseeability’) in cases relating to negligence (in determining whether a duty of care is owed and what damages are reasonably foreseeable) and in cases assessing damages for breach of contract (also in assessing the remoteness of damage). In both contexts there is a body of case law which has established that: i. Foreseeability must be assessed objectively through the eyes of a reasonable person who has taken all reasonable steps to inform himself of the circumstances; ii. An outcome is foreseeable in legal terms if it is ‘liable to result’, ‘not unlikely’, ‘quite likely’, a ‘real danger’, a ‘serious possibility’, or a ‘real risk’. iii. The term ‘unforeseen’ has few if any direct dictionary definitions, but by thesaurus is aligned with such concepts as ‘unexpected’ and ‘without warning’. In a legal context, it must also be taken as a reverse of what is ‘foreseen’, thus being ‘not liable to result’, ‘unlikely’, ‘not a real danger’, ‘not a serious possibility’, or ‘not a real risk’.
The use of the word ‘unforeseen’ in s. 66 RTA provides for a subjective test. The question of objective reasonableness is however relevant in determining whether the change was genuinely unforeseen by the applicant.
Thus, to reduce the term of the tenancy, the tenants have the onus of establishing that: a. They have had a change in circumstances. b. That change was unforeseen. c. The severe hardship they would suffer if the tenancy was not reduced would be greater than the hardship the landlord would suffer it it was reduced.
I accept that the tenants did have a change in circumstances, as they said they were told by Ms Sun’s employer in March or April 2025 that they expected her to live in Melbourne permanently, when she said she was unsure about this before then. However, I find the evidence provided by the tenants was not sufficient to establish that it was an unforeseen change in circumstances. To enter into two one-year, fixed-term tenancies for different properties on the same day in two different countries, after Ms Sun had already accepted a job and signed an employment agreement to work in Melbourne, without Ms Sun having clarified with her employer their expectation of where she was to live permanently for her employment, or clarifying who was to pay the Melbourne rent, given other of the company’s employees were expected to also live there, is a situation fraught with potential risk, in my view. Ms Sun acknowledged that both tenants understood when they signed both tenancy leases in the different countries that they would be legally liable for their obligations under each tenancy lease. I find, based on the evidence, that it was objectively reasonable for these tenants to be aware that there was a strong possibility that this plan could go wrong. As such, this change in circumstances was not unforeseen, in my view.
As the tenants have not proved that this change was unforeseen, I do not need to consider whether the tenant’s hardship would be greater than the landlord’s hardship.
Fortunately for the tenants, the landlord did re-tenant the property, starting on 21 August 2025, and therefore the tenants are only liable for rent to 20 August 2025, only 3 weeks after they vacated the property on 30 July 2025. In doing so, I find the landlord moved quickly to mitigate any losses for both parties.
As such, I dismiss the tenants’ claim to reduce the fixed-term tenancy.
Given the tenants’ claim to reduce the fixed-term tenancy is dismissed, and that the landlord found a new tenant who moved in on 21 August 2025, I find the tenancy ended on 20 August 2025, the day before the new tenant moved in. Landlord’s Claims

How much is owed for rent?

As the fixed-term tenancy is not reduced, the tenant is liable to pay rent until the day before any new tenancy, which would be to 20 August 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing to 20 August 2025, which is $1,740.00. Break lease costs (‘service fees’)
The landlord claimed compensation for break lease costs, which they termed ‘service fees’, in the amount of $598.00, GST inclusive. These were costs involved in viewings of the property, processing applications, doing a credit check and other costs associated with trying to re-tenant the property. The landlord said they had emailed the invoice setting out these costs to the tenants on 13 October 2025, only a couple of days before the hearing.
I note the tenants’ evidence that Ms Sun had offered to cover such costs for the landlord when seeking to be released early from the tenancy lease. As the landlord had declined her request to leave the tenancy early, Ms Sun was then reluctant to agree to cover any such costs during the hearing.
The tenancy agreement allows for the landlord to be compensated for any break lease reasonable costs to find new tenants. Given the evidence and in the circumstances, I find the break lease costs claimed to be reasonable and award $598.00 to the landlord for break lease costs incurred because of the tenants leaving the tenancy early without the landlord’s consent. Filing fee
Because the landlord has been successful with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
The tenants did not apply for reimbursement of the filing fee in their application but, even if they had done so, would not have been reimbursed for any filing fee, as their claim is dismissed. Refund of the bond
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,320.00 (BN-00046514) to Shelter Realty Limited T/As Harcourts Shelter Realty As Agent For Zhao And Zhen Holding Ltd immediately. Suppression
The tenants requested name suppression. The landlord did not request name suppression.
As the tenants have not been successful with their claim, nor was any evidence provided as to why the tenants’ interests outweighed the public interest in publishing their names, I do not grant the tenants name suppression. See sections 95A(1) and 95A(1) RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5315041 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 1, 2A Mantra Road, Massey, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5315041 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 1, 2A Mantra Road, Massey, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Was the change in circumstances unforeseeable?

How much is owed for rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Was the change in circumstances unforeseeable?

How much is owed for rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions