Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5317945 — Exemplary damages
Decided 13 Nov 2025 · Published 13 Nov 2025 · Application 5317945
- Exemplary damages
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
- By way of declaration, the parties are landlord and tenant under a residential tenancy agreement to which the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) applies.
- The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11:59pm on Tuesday 7 October 2025.
- [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $5,128.00 immediately, as follows.
Reasons
- The parties attended the hearing which was held by videoconference.
- Neither [The landlord/s] nor [Tenant 1] has included [Tenant 2] as a party to the claims. The evidence satisfies me that the agreement included [Tenant 2], who participated in the hearing and should be a party. Introduction
- [The landlord/s] and [The tenant/s] were acquainted through their mutual faith.
- [The tenant/s] had been living in [Suburb]. Their tenancy was ending.
- [The landlord/s] had just bought a property in the [Region], comprising a main dwelling and a granny flat.
- [The landlord/s] arrived late to a faith meeting in [Suburb] on 26 March 2024. [The tenant/s] invited him to their home for refreshments afterward. During the course of their conversation [The tenant/s] mentioned that they were having to move out of their place. [The landlord/s] suggested that they should come to [Region] and live in the granny flat at the property he had just bought and which he showed them videos of.
- Both parties describe the arrangement they discussed as intended to provide [The tenant/s] with a place they could live for the rest of their days ([The tenant/s] are in their 80’s), while acting as caretakers and managers for the property. The plan was to establish a B n’ B accommodation business there. [The landlord/s] also describes the arrangement, from his point of view, in terms of a wish to help a brother in need.
- A couple of days later [The landlord/s] had the opportunity to transport a truck from [City 1] to [City 2] for an acquaintance. He suggested that [The tenant/s] use the truck to move their things to the property. [The landlord/s] paid them $500.00 to help cover their moving costs and helped with fuel. The move happened on 2 April 2024.
- Both agree that [The tenant/s] were to pay weekly rent of $300.00. [The landlord/s] says it was agreed that [The tenant/s] would also pay the rates on the property. [The tenant/s] dispute that. To help cover initial costs, no rent was payable for the first 5 weeks.
- No written agreement was made. Later, in 2025 [The tenant/s] asked for an agreement. In the absence of [The landlord/s] providing one, [Tenant 1] prepared a draft which [The landlord/s] did not sign.
- [The tenant/s] had a caravan which they sold because they no longer needed it. They bought a small car for trips to [Town], about 60 kilometres away.
- [The tenant/s] lived in the granny flat but because the granny flat had no washing machine or stove they had access to the main house for laundry and cooking.
- For various reasons, the relationship between the parties deteriorated to the point where they both agree their plan of together developing the accommodation business is not achievable.
- [The landlord/s] has moved into the main house. He has taken steps to exclude [The tenant/s] from the main house and has given notice to terminate their occupation of the granny flat. [The tenant/s] have asserted a lien, through a self- executing judgement, for $2,000,000.00 plus interest, over [The landlord/s]’s assets, including this property and threatened to sell them
- Both parties have listed extensive grievances about the other’s behaviour, conduct and attitude. As noted during the hearing, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider parties’ behaviour only to the extent that it is relevant to their obligations under the agreement or the Residential Tenancies Act (“RTA”). Issues
- To determine the parties’ claims, there are a number of questions the Tribunal needs to determine, They are: a. Is the parties’ dispute within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to resolve? b. If so, should exemplary damages be awarded for failure to document their agreement? c. Are the premises unlawful premises? d. Has the tenancy been ended and if so when? e. What rent or other payments are owed by [The tenant/s]? f. Are [The tenant/s] entitled to compensation or exemplary damages for [The landlord/s] breaching their right to quiet enjoyment of the premises? g. Are [The tenant/s] entitled to compensation for their caravan Is this dispute within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction?
- The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine disputes between landlords and tenants, concerning tenancies to which the RTA applies. 1
- The parties had an agreement that [The tenant/s] could occupy as their residence, premises owned by [The landlord/s] in consideration for rent (money and services). While both describe the arrangement as being part of a bigger plan to establish a Bn’B business, it is a tenancy as defined in s.2 RTA 2 .
- It then needs to be considered whether the tenancy is of a type excluded from the RTA by s.5(1). The relevant exclusions here are those that apply where: a. the premises are principally used as a place of residence for the landlord 3 ; or 1 S.77(1) RTA 2 “tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent..” b. there is a perpetual right of renewal 4 .
- The evidence is that until recently when he moved into the main house, [The landlord/s] has been based in [City 2], though he spends much of his time away working. It could not be said when the agreement was entered into, that the principal use of the premises was as [The landlord/s]’s place of residence. The agreement is not excluded from the RTA by s.5(1)(n).
- As noted, both parties had the hope and intention that this could be a lifelong arrangement for [The tenant/s]. That hope and intention does not comprise a perpetual right of renewal. I note that when [Tenant 1] prepared a draft agreement for [The landlord/s] to consider, the term of the arrangement was proposed as being from 1 February 2024 to 31 December 2029. The agreement is not excluded from the RTA by s.5(1)(w).
- Because this is a residential tenancy agreement which is not of a type excluded from the RTA, the RTA applies and the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the dispute.
Should exemplary damages be awarded for failure to document their agreement?
- A landlord has the legal obligation to ensure that a tenancy agreement is properly recorded. That means a tenant agreement must: a. be in writing and signed by the landlord 5 b. contain detailed specified information 6 .
- Failure to provide a written signed agreement or to provide any one of the items of required information is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $750.00 may be awarded.
- The landlord has comprehensively failed to meet those obligations and has committed multiple unlawful acts.
- Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied that it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The landlord’s breach was intentional.
- [The landlord/s] says that he struggles with paperwork, having dyslexia and dealing with the effects of earlier brain trauma. He says that he didn’t think an agreement would be necessary because he could trust [The tenant/s], as people with similar beliefs and values. 3 S.5(1)(n) RTA 4 S.5(1)(w) RTA 5 S.13 RTA 6 S.13A RTA
- The effect of the breach has been that there is a real lack of clarity about the parties’ agreement. That uncertainty has fuelled the parties’ dispute and positional behaviour. While [The landlord/s] may consider [The tenant/s] better equipped than him to understand the legalities of the situation, the statutory responsibility to properly record the agreement is his and he must take responsibility not doing so.
- [The landlord/s]’s failure to provide a proper agreement even after a specific request to do so, is an aggravating factor.
- I have considered whether a claim for exemplary damages is prevented by s.109(2) 7 for being out of time. The failure to provide a written signed agreement, particularly after a specific recent request, is a continuing breach not prevented by that provision.
- Here, there are multiple different breaches of the landlord’s obligations under s.13 and 13A.
- The District Court in Gardiner v Upland Bay Investments Limited 8 noted: “[28] Mr Opie also submitted, as noted above, that individual awards of exemplary damages should be made for each individual breach, in effect arguing that the statutory maximums as set out in Schedule 1A to the Act should apply not globally, but in respect to each individual breach. Accordingly, Mr Opie sought an award of exemplary damages of $1,000 (the statutory maximum) for Upland Bay's failure to lodge the bond, and $1,000 in exemplary damages for its refusal or omission to issue a receipt for the bond. In respect to the various breaches of building standards or health and safety requirements, he sought a separate award in respect to each failure, of $1,000 for each individual breach. [29] However, Schedule 1A is explicit, when setting the maximum amount awardable in relation to both s 19 and s 45 breaches, that the maximum applied to the breach of duties (plural), in the case of s 19 and the landlord's failure to meet obligations (also plural) in respect of s 45. The plural forms as adopted by the legislature in both instances indicate that the maximums are in respect to a global or total award for all breaches under the respective sections.”
- Applying that approach here, I find that if the grounds are made out, the Tribunal should consider whether to award exemplary damages, up to the maximum specified, for each breach that constitutes a separate unlawful act.
- Accordingly, an award may be made for breach of s.13, which is an unlawful act under s.13(4). An award (but only one award) may be made for the 7 “A landlord or a tenant may not apply [for exemplary damages] later than...12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act...” 8 DC Wellington CIV-2014-085-13, 27 August 2014 multiple breaches of the requirement to provide mandatory details under s.13A(1) which are unlawful acts under s.13(1AAA). An award (but only one award) may be made for the multiple breaches of the requirement to provide specified information s.13A(1A) and following, which are unlawful acts under s.13(1F).
- Weighing the above considerations I find that an award of exemplary damages of $500.00 each would be just for the breaches of s.13(4), 13(1AAA) and 13(1F).
Are the premises unlawful premises?
- Premises are unlawful where they cannot lawfully be occupied for residential purposes.
- I infer, from the limited evidence available, that the granny flat, by itself, could not lawfully be occupied for residential purposes, having no cooking or laundry facilities.
- The evidence does not prove that the granny flat could not lawfully be occupied for residential purposes, in conjunction with the main house giving access to those facilities.
Has the tenancy been ended and if so when?
- [The landlord/s] gave a written notice to [The tenant/s] on 31 July 2025 including: “I have now decided to proceed with letting out the main house and when I come to my property, I will make use of the cottage/ granny flat as this will suit my needs. Therefore, it is now necessary for me to terminate our agreement and for you and [Tenant 2] to find alternative accommodation. As of 4th day of August 2025 you have 65 days to vacate the property with all of your belongings come up that being the seventh day of October 2025.”
- [The landlord/s] has since moved onto the main house. His evidence is that although he will continue working away often, the granny flat will be used as his home when he uses the main house for guest accommodation, which he intends to do as soon as he can.
- The first question is whether this is a periodic tenancy which can be ended by notice, or a fixed term tenancy which cannot.
- By definition, a residential tenancy is either periodic or fixed term 9 . A fixed term tenancy requires that the date on which the fixed term will expire is specified. 10 9 S.2 RTA “periodic tenancy means a residential tenancy other than a fixed-term tenancy” 10 S.13A(1)(p)
- Though the parties clearly shared the hope and expectation that this would be a long term arrangement, the evidence does not show an agreement that it would end on any fixed future date.
- This is not a fixed term tenancy. By default it is a periodic tenancy which can be ended by notice.
- I have considered [The tenant/s]’s view that the tenancy cannot be ended by notice because they were given an assurance that this could be their home for life. Again, the evidence shows those mutual hopes and expectations. Very many landlords and tenants hope and expect, when entering into tenancy agreements, that they will have a long lasting and mutually beneficial relationship. The evidence does not show a specific promise about that by [The landlord/s] that he should be estopped from resiling from, notwithstanding his statutory rights under the RTA.
- A periodic tenancy may be ended by notice under s.51 RTA. The relevant provision here is s.51(2)(a) under which a landlord can terminate a periodic tenancy by giving at least 42 days’ notice, if they require the premises, within 90 days after the termination date, as their principal place of residence for at least 90 days.
- I accept [The landlord/s]’s evidence that as well as wanting to establish the accommodation enterprise at the property in the main house, he does require the granny flat as his principal place of residence.
- I find that the termination notice was validly given and effective to terminate the tenancy on 7 October 2025. What rent or other payments are owed by [The tenant/s]?
- The evidence suggests that [The tenant/s] have paid the agreed $300.00 weekly rent. They have not paid the rates for the property which [The landlord/s] says they were required to under the agreement.
- Rates are payable by the landlord 11 . There is no written agreement to prove a contrary liability. The landlord’s claim for unpaid rates is dismissed.
- [The tenant/s] are responsible for weekly rent of $300.00 per week from the end of the rent holiday (5 weeks after the tenancy began) to the end of the tenancy. Are [The tenant/s] entitled to compensation or exemplary damages?
- As the parties’ relationship deteriorated, their behaviour became increasingly confrontational. Each sought to assert their positions forcefully. 11 S.39(2)
- As noted, [The tenant/s] made extreme claims they say they have under a jurisdiction outside New Zealand’s legal framework. Those claims included claims to ownership of the property and of [The landlord/s]’s other assets, threatened sale of those assets and issuing a trespass notice against the landlord as well as all others. Those actions, though inflammatory, do not of themselves constitute a breach of a tenant’s obligations under the RTA.
- For his part, [The landlord/s] took matters into his own hands.
- His statement reads, “After the police left me back onto the property, I had a locksmith come in and change the locks to stop [The tenant/s] from having access to the main house, and this now makes the granny flat non-compliant.”
- Amidst the allegations and counter allegations, a few things are clear; a. access to the main house was a part of the agreement – and was part of the premises covered by the agreement, which were otherwise unlawful, without cooking or laundry facilities; b. [The landlord/s] made proposals to try and have the granny flat self- contained by providing cooking facilities and allowing alternative access to the main house laundry; c. He also sought to make other unilateral changes to the living arrangements with that goal of excluding [The tenant/s] from having access to the main house; d. [The landlord/s] was not entitled to unilaterally force changes to those arrangements that had initially been agreed.
- Neither a landlord nor a tenant may alter or remove any locks without the other party's consent. 12
- Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. By doing so, [The landlord/s] committed an unlawful act and did so intentionally.
- Considering the factors in s.109(3) that I have already referred to, I take into account that changing the lock was not motivated by genuine security needs per se but to prevent [The tenant/s] having access to the facilities that were part of the agreement. That is an aggravating factor.
- I also take into account the contributing conduct by [The tenant/s] in trying to use a clearly invalid trespass notice to prevent [The landlord/s] having access to the property that he was entitled to, leading to escalation and police involvement (the parties give opposite versions of what they were told by the attending officer about [The landlord/s]’s right to change the locks).
- There is a fundamental public interest in parties using the mechanisms of the justice system rather than force, to address such disputes. 12 S. 46(1) and (2) RTA
- In those circumstances I find an award of exemplary damages of $1,200.00 to be just. I record having made it clear at the hearing on 18 September 2025 that [The tenant/s] are entitled to continue having access to the cooking and laundry facilities in the main house until the tenancy ends. Are [The tenant/s] entitled to compensation for breach of their right to quiet enjoyment?
- A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. 13
- [The landlord/s]’s actions in trying to prevent [The tenant/s] having access to the main house breached their right to quiet enjoyment of the premises, which included that access. He also unilaterally disconnected the power to the garage used by [The tenant/s] meaning they could not open the door and also blocked access for their car to the granny flat.
- There were earlier interruptions to the provision of gas for the main house stove, not at that time intended to prevent [The tenant/s] using those facilities.
- On 18 April 2025 [The landlord/s] informed [The tenant/s] of a number of other changes he was going to make to the living situation, designed to avoid the need for [The tenant/s] to have access to the main house
- Again, those actions were in breach of [The tenant/s]’s right to quiet enjoyment of the premises in terms of the originally agreed arrangements.
- They are entitled to compensation for those breaches, which were significant, and destabilising. I fix that compensation at 3 weeks’ rent. Are [The tenant/s] also entitled to compensation for breach of their right to quiet enjoyment?
- Breach of a tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $3,000.00 may be awarded 14
- “Harassment” generally constitutes a pattern of behaviour intended to coerce or intimidate.
- On balance, I find that [The landlord/s]’s breaches of [The tenant/s]’s right to quiet enjoyment, considered together, amounted to a pattern of blatantly coercive behaviour. It was aimed at forcing his preferred outcome to the situation in breach of the originally agreed terms. 13 S. 38(2) RTA 14 S.38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA
- I have no doubt that [The landlord/s] genuinely feels that it is the other way around and that he is the victim of harassment by [The tenant/s], given the drastic actions threatened by them. Really, both parties have been harassing each other using the means available to them. Harassment by a landlord is an unlawful act under the RTA.
- In the circumstances, again taking into account [The tenant/s]’s contribution to the situation, the award made for [The landlord/s] changing the locks as part of that pattern of behaviour harassing conduct and the compensation awarded, I find an award of $1,500.00 to be just. Are [The tenant/s] entitled to compensation for their caravan?
- Compensation can be claimed for losses caused by another party’s breach that are actual and reasonably foreseeable.
- [The landlord/s] say they sold the caravan because they were promised a home for life in this property, which meant they no longer had use for it.
- The loss from sale of [The tenant/s]’s caravan is not proved. They received the sale proceeds, some of which were applied to the purchase of the car they still have.
- Fundamentally, any loss from the sale is not proved to have been caused by a breach of [The landlord/s]’s obligations. Having found that the parties agreement comprised a residential tenancy agreement, able to be terminated by notice, [The tenant/s]’s decision to sell the caravan cannot be said to have been induced by any term of the agreement breached by [The landlord/s].
- That claim is dismissed.
- As [The tenant/s] have had claims upheld I reimburse the filing fee.