What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5316116 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 5316116?

Rent: $3,400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5316116?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5316116?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12545839-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5316116 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 5316116?

Rent: $3,400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5316116?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5316116?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12545839-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5316116 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5316116 — net $680.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent to 19 September 2025	$3,400.00	Rent to 19 September 2025
Net award	$680.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$680.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s and tenants’ name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $680.00 immediately, as calculated in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants have applied to reduce a fixed term tenancy, for refund of the bond and also seeks damages for stress and anxiety. Background
The tenancy commenced on 20 September 2024 and was due to end on 19 September 2025.
On 7 April 2025 the tenants contacted the landlord requesting to end the fixed- term tenancy early due to the need for a larger home. The landlord responded with the standard break lease process and estimated break lease fees. At this time, the tenants declined, citing affordability. The landlord says that during a subsequent phone call, they explained that early termination was only possible if a replacement tenant was found, dates aligned, and no financial loss was incurred by the landlord.
On 23 June 2025 the tenants responded to a system-generated email about the upcoming tenancy expiry, formally confirming their intention to vacate the property at the end of the tenancy, being 19 September 2025.
On 17 July 2025 the landlord secured a new tenant to commence on 22 September 2025 and advised the tenant by text. In that same message, the landlord stated, “if you find something sooner than the 19 th September and want to move earlier, this tenant could move in earlier, just so you know”.
On 18 July 2025 the tenants messaged the landlord, “just so I can be prepared when we find a new place. What would be the minimum amount of notice you would need for new tenants to move in. Also, if we move out earlier than sep 19 th do we still need to continue to pay rent up until that date?”.
The landlord’s response was that the new tenant could move in pretty quickly, was currently living with family so doesn’t have to give notice; “[a] week or two notice would be good...and no, you don’t need to pay rent to the end of your fixed term and there wouldn’t be a break fee, as we have a new tenant ready to take over from you”.
The tenants replied, “fingers crossed I find something soon!”.
On 24 July 2025 the tenants messaged the landlord, “we have been offered a place to move in. Would sat 9 th of August suit you?”.
The landlord responded the next day stating that after speaking with the new tenant, she had been advised that the tenant’s personal circumstances were such, that she was unable to move into the property until September.
The tenants moved out on 10 August 2025 and have paid rent until this date.
The dispute is whether the tenants are liable for the rent between the vacate date and the end of the fixed term tenancy. Parties’ submissions
The landlord has sought rent until the end of the fixed term tenancy (19 September 2025) and says that ending the tenancy early was only ever a possibility if everything aligned in terms of dates. They say there was no agreement to end the tenancy early or with a reduced notice period. When the landlord suggested that the tenancy could potentially end early, the tenant did not even have a property lined up. They further say that the tenants made a mistake in signing the agreement before having confirmation that the new tenant could bring her commencement date forward.
The tenants dispute this on the basis that they believe there was an agreement that they could end the tenancy early and could do so with one to two weeks’ notice and they signed a new tenancy agreement on reliance of that assurance. The law

Was there an agreement to end the tenancy early?

Section 13B of the RTA requires that every variation of a tenancy agreement must be in writing and signed by both the landlord and the tenant. However, section 13C of the RTA provides that notwithstanding this, no variation of a tenancy agreement shall be unenforceable on the ground that it is not in writing.
Although fixed term tenancies normally cannot be ended early unless both parties agree in writing, or the Tribunal orders it, 1 I will still consider whether there was an agreement here to end the tenancy early.
Agreements require offer and acceptance. An offer is a clear, definite statement by one party indicating an intention to be bound on certain terms if the other party agrees. Acceptance is the unconditional agreement to those terms. Both elements must exist for a legally binding agreement to exist.
In these circumstances, was there an agreement to end the tenancy early?
I do not consider that there was. The landlord indicated a willingness to negotiate, but there was no legal obligation until the parties reached an agreement with certainty (e.g. there was an agreed date). For the text message of 18 July 2025 to have been an offer open to acceptance by the tenant, there would have needed to be clear, definite terms. In this case there were no clear terms, the landlord still wanted to approve or discuss further details and it lacks certainty and the intent required to be immediately bound. 1 See section 50(1)(d) and (f) of the RTA.
In my view this was an invitation to treat by the landlord (in other words an invitation or possibility to end the tenancy early).
When the tenants then made an offer of a finite end date, being 9 August 2025, this had the requisite certainty to be considered an offer.
However, this was ultimately declined by the landlord and therefore there was no agreement.
Accordingly, I consider that there was no agreement to end the tenancy early, or with one to two weeks’ notice. Is the landlord prevented from enforcing the terms of the fixed term tenancy due to promissory estoppel?
The tenants submitted that promissory estoppel prevents the landlord from enforcing the fixed-term tenancy. This was based on submission that the landlord met the four elements required to establish estoppel by representations, statement(s) and conduct, namely: a. That a belief or expectation was created or encouraged by the landlord’s words or conduct. b. To the extent an express representation is relied upon, it is clearly and unequivocally expressed. c. The tenant reasonably relied on the representation to their detriment; and d. It would be unconscionable to depart from that belief or expectation. 2
The tenants submit that the facts in this case satisfy these elements.
The landlord provided submissions in response on this point, and considered in summary that no clear or binding promise was ever made that could reasonably form the basis of an estoppel claim.
In my view, promissory estoppel could only apply where a landlord makes a definite and unqualified promise. In this case, the landlord stated that if the tenant finds something sooner, the new tenant could move in,
These statements were informal, conditional on the new tenant being able to move early and expressed in casual language (e.g. could, would be good).
The promise was conditional and not absolute, the landlord’s statement “you don’t need to pay rent to the end... as we have a new tenant ready to take over” clearly links the release from rent to the new tenant actually taking over, in other words this was an implicit condition, and when that condition fell away, the basis of any assurance fell away. 2 Wilson Parking New Zealand v Fanshawe 136 Ltd [2014] NZCA at 407 at [44].
Reliance on the informal and conditional statement by the landlord was not objectively reasonable, even if genuine.
Finally, even if I am wrong in this assessment, the RTA states in section 50(1)(d) that a fixed term tenancy can only end early if both parties agree in writing. I do not consider that equity can override the explicit provisions of the RTA in these circumstances. 3
I find that the tenants are unable to rely on promissory estoppel to release the landlord from their statutory rights under the RTA. Summary
I therefore find that the tenants are liable for rent until the end of the tenancy, being 19 September 2025, which I believe amounts to $3,400.00 as ordered. 4
I have awarded this from the bond, despite there being no formal application filed in respect of the bond by the landlord to ensure a fair and expeditious resolution of the dispute. 5
The tenants sought damages for stress and anxiety, and although I have no doubt and entirely accept the tenant’s evidence that this process has been incredibly stressful for them, especially during pregnancy, I have dismissed the tenants’ claims in respect of whether there was an agreement to end the tenancy early and it follows that any claims for further damages in respect of this are also dismissed.
The tenants have requested name suppression in the application. I consider that this was a technical legal dispute that the tenant was justified in questioning. In my view, the interests of the tenants outweigh any public interest and any benefit to the public in the decision can be obtained without the publication of names. I have also granted name suppression to the landlord as they have been wholly successful. 6 NP. Apologies to the parties for the delay in releasing this order. I had intended to issue it earlier however a family bereavement caused unexpected delays. R Harvey-Lane 10 October 2025 4 Any further rent paid by the tenant should of course be deducted from the final amount owing. 5 See ss 22B and 85 of the RTA. 6 See section 95A of the RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5316116 — net $680.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent to 19 September 2025	$3,400.00	Rent to 19 September 2025
Net award	$680.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$680.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s and tenants’ name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $680.00 immediately, as calculated in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenants have applied to reduce a fixed term tenancy, for refund of the bond and also seeks damages for stress and anxiety. Background
The tenancy commenced on 20 September 2024 and was due to end on 19 September 2025.
On 7 April 2025 the tenants contacted the landlord requesting to end the fixed- term tenancy early due to the need for a larger home. The landlord responded with the standard break lease process and estimated break lease fees. At this time, the tenants declined, citing affordability. The landlord says that during a subsequent phone call, they explained that early termination was only possible if a replacement tenant was found, dates aligned, and no financial loss was incurred by the landlord.
On 23 June 2025 the tenants responded to a system-generated email about the upcoming tenancy expiry, formally confirming their intention to vacate the property at the end of the tenancy, being 19 September 2025.
On 17 July 2025 the landlord secured a new tenant to commence on 22 September 2025 and advised the tenant by text. In that same message, the landlord stated, “if you find something sooner than the 19 th September and want to move earlier, this tenant could move in earlier, just so you know”.
On 18 July 2025 the tenants messaged the landlord, “just so I can be prepared when we find a new place. What would be the minimum amount of notice you would need for new tenants to move in. Also, if we move out earlier than sep 19 th do we still need to continue to pay rent up until that date?”.
The landlord’s response was that the new tenant could move in pretty quickly, was currently living with family so doesn’t have to give notice; “[a] week or two notice would be good...and no, you don’t need to pay rent to the end of your fixed term and there wouldn’t be a break fee, as we have a new tenant ready to take over from you”.
The tenants replied, “fingers crossed I find something soon!”.
On 24 July 2025 the tenants messaged the landlord, “we have been offered a place to move in. Would sat 9 th of August suit you?”.
The landlord responded the next day stating that after speaking with the new tenant, she had been advised that the tenant’s personal circumstances were such, that she was unable to move into the property until September.
The tenants moved out on 10 August 2025 and have paid rent until this date.
The dispute is whether the tenants are liable for the rent between the vacate date and the end of the fixed term tenancy. Parties’ submissions
The landlord has sought rent until the end of the fixed term tenancy (19 September 2025) and says that ending the tenancy early was only ever a possibility if everything aligned in terms of dates. They say there was no agreement to end the tenancy early or with a reduced notice period. When the landlord suggested that the tenancy could potentially end early, the tenant did not even have a property lined up. They further say that the tenants made a mistake in signing the agreement before having confirmation that the new tenant could bring her commencement date forward.
The tenants dispute this on the basis that they believe there was an agreement that they could end the tenancy early and could do so with one to two weeks’ notice and they signed a new tenancy agreement on reliance of that assurance. The law

Was there an agreement to end the tenancy early?

Section 13B of the RTA requires that every variation of a tenancy agreement must be in writing and signed by both the landlord and the tenant. However, section 13C of the RTA provides that notwithstanding this, no variation of a tenancy agreement shall be unenforceable on the ground that it is not in writing.
Although fixed term tenancies normally cannot be ended early unless both parties agree in writing, or the Tribunal orders it, 1 I will still consider whether there was an agreement here to end the tenancy early.
Agreements require offer and acceptance. An offer is a clear, definite statement by one party indicating an intention to be bound on certain terms if the other party agrees. Acceptance is the unconditional agreement to those terms. Both elements must exist for a legally binding agreement to exist.
In these circumstances, was there an agreement to end the tenancy early?
I do not consider that there was. The landlord indicated a willingness to negotiate, but there was no legal obligation until the parties reached an agreement with certainty (e.g. there was an agreed date). For the text message of 18 July 2025 to have been an offer open to acceptance by the tenant, there would have needed to be clear, definite terms. In this case there were no clear terms, the landlord still wanted to approve or discuss further details and it lacks certainty and the intent required to be immediately bound. 1 See section 50(1)(d) and (f) of the RTA.
In my view this was an invitation to treat by the landlord (in other words an invitation or possibility to end the tenancy early).
When the tenants then made an offer of a finite end date, being 9 August 2025, this had the requisite certainty to be considered an offer.
However, this was ultimately declined by the landlord and therefore there was no agreement.
Accordingly, I consider that there was no agreement to end the tenancy early, or with one to two weeks’ notice. Is the landlord prevented from enforcing the terms of the fixed term tenancy due to promissory estoppel?
The tenants submitted that promissory estoppel prevents the landlord from enforcing the fixed-term tenancy. This was based on submission that the landlord met the four elements required to establish estoppel by representations, statement(s) and conduct, namely: a. That a belief or expectation was created or encouraged by the landlord’s words or conduct. b. To the extent an express representation is relied upon, it is clearly and unequivocally expressed. c. The tenant reasonably relied on the representation to their detriment; and d. It would be unconscionable to depart from that belief or expectation. 2
The tenants submit that the facts in this case satisfy these elements.
The landlord provided submissions in response on this point, and considered in summary that no clear or binding promise was ever made that could reasonably form the basis of an estoppel claim.
In my view, promissory estoppel could only apply where a landlord makes a definite and unqualified promise. In this case, the landlord stated that if the tenant finds something sooner, the new tenant could move in,
These statements were informal, conditional on the new tenant being able to move early and expressed in casual language (e.g. could, would be good).
The promise was conditional and not absolute, the landlord’s statement “you don’t need to pay rent to the end... as we have a new tenant ready to take over” clearly links the release from rent to the new tenant actually taking over, in other words this was an implicit condition, and when that condition fell away, the basis of any assurance fell away. 2 Wilson Parking New Zealand v Fanshawe 136 Ltd [2014] NZCA at 407 at [44].
Reliance on the informal and conditional statement by the landlord was not objectively reasonable, even if genuine.
Finally, even if I am wrong in this assessment, the RTA states in section 50(1)(d) that a fixed term tenancy can only end early if both parties agree in writing. I do not consider that equity can override the explicit provisions of the RTA in these circumstances. 3
I find that the tenants are unable to rely on promissory estoppel to release the landlord from their statutory rights under the RTA. Summary
I therefore find that the tenants are liable for rent until the end of the tenancy, being 19 September 2025, which I believe amounts to $3,400.00 as ordered. 4
I have awarded this from the bond, despite there being no formal application filed in respect of the bond by the landlord to ensure a fair and expeditious resolution of the dispute. 5
The tenants sought damages for stress and anxiety, and although I have no doubt and entirely accept the tenant’s evidence that this process has been incredibly stressful for them, especially during pregnancy, I have dismissed the tenants’ claims in respect of whether there was an agreement to end the tenancy early and it follows that any claims for further damages in respect of this are also dismissed.
The tenants have requested name suppression in the application. I consider that this was a technical legal dispute that the tenant was justified in questioning. In my view, the interests of the tenants outweigh any public interest and any benefit to the public in the decision can be obtained without the publication of names. I have also granted name suppression to the landlord as they have been wholly successful. 6 NP. Apologies to the parties for the delay in releasing this order. I had intended to issue it earlier however a family bereavement caused unexpected delays. R Harvey-Lane 10 October 2025 4 Any further rent paid by the tenant should of course be deducted from the final amount owing. 5 See ss 22B and 85 of the RTA. 6 See section 95A of the RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5316116 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5316116 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was there an agreement to end the tenancy early?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was there an agreement to end the tenancy early?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions