What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5338101 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 5338101?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5338101?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5338101?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13406645-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5338101 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 5338101?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5338101?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5338101?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13406645-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

309A Don Buck Road, Massey, Auckland 0614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5338101 — Exemplary damages

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing, but the respondent did not attend.
The respondent has been in contact with the Tribunal and advised that they would not be attending the hearing as this claim had nothing to do with them.
I accept that the fixed term tenancy that was the subject of this tenant claim related to the previous owners and not Cypress Investment Holdings Limited (CIH). However, the subsequent eviction was as a direct response to the actions of the CIH and not the previous owners.
309 Don Buck Road was a development of 4 units on one site.
The background to this claim is that the tenant entered a 5-year fixed term tenancy with the previous owner in June 2023. The tenancy was at 309 A Don Buck Road, Massey and was to terminate on 25 June 2028.
The rent was set at a below market price of $400.00 and was fixed for the 5 years term.
After the High Court awarded possession of the property to the respondent following the purchase of the property through the mortgagee sale, the eviction process began.
On 21 August 2025, a Court Bailiff served each tenant with an eviction notice requiring them all to leave permanently by 10am on 28 August 2025. The tenant did not leave as required to do so.
When the tenant saw the eviction notice he spoke to the bailiff and said this is a dispute between the old owner and the new owner and they should speak to them. The tenant said that under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), the new owner had to take over the tenancy. The tenant said the new owner did not have the jurisdiction to evict him. The tenants felt that his position was secure and was not overly worried at that time.
The tenant recalls seeing the mortgagee sale sign outside on the road in 2024.
On 28 August 2025, the bailiff came to the property with a locksmith and a Police officer. The tenant was forced to leave the property with only his car keys and mobile phone. Subsequently the tenant was permitted to return on 29 th and 30 th August 2025 to collect his possessions.
The tenant was traumatised at what happened to him after the eviction. He had to sleep in his car for 3 weeks despite having paid rent up to 31 August 2025. He incurred moving costs of $1600.00, lost a lot of his belonging estimated to be valued at $5000.00 and suffered emotional harm. He had paid the previous owner $400.00 in bond which he has not recovered.
The tenant paid cash for his rent to the previous owner right up to August 2025. Unlawful termination of a fixed term tenancy:
The tenant has now left the property and filed an application before the Tribunal claiming that he had been unlawfully evicted from the tenancy, when he had a legitimate fixed term tenancy.
Furthermore, the tenant seeks to return to the property and damages for the landlord’s breach.
The tenant had a fixed term tenancy with the previous owner of the property.
The property was sold at a mortgagee sale. The new owners obtained a possession order from the High Court, and the tenant was evicted by the bailiff.
Section 62 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that a tenancy may be terminated by a possession order made by the High Court or District Court following a mortgagee sale.
The eviction was carried out pursuant to a valid court order. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to review the lawfulness of a High Court possession order.
There is no evidence of any unlawful act by the landlord or purchaser in relation to the termination of the tenancy or the eviction.
The tenants’ claim that their fixed term tenancy was unlawfully terminated is dismissed.
The claim for damages and exemplary damages is also dismissed, as there is no evidence of an unlawful act under the RTA.
Where a property is sold at a mortgagee sale and a possession order is obtained from the High Court, the tenancy is lawfully terminated by operation of law. The Tribunal cannot award exemplary damages in these circumstances. The tenant claims are dismissed:
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The tenant claims have been set out and reasoned above.
The tenant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that his fixed term tenancy was unlawfully terminated.
The tenant does not have the right to re-enter of the property as a tenant under his previous tenancy agreement.
The tenant’s claims are dismissed.
The tenant was clearly affected by the eviction and the direct consequences of that, but the Tribunal is not in a position to assist with the losses incurred from a lawful eviction from the tenancy. Suppression/Bond/filing Fee:
The tenant has sought suppression of his name and identifying details. Even though he has not been successful, I am granting suppression to both the tenant and respondent. Neither party were at fault and there is no merit in publishing even parties name and details.
The Bond was not lodged with the bond centre and was taken be the previous owner. The landlord is not responsible for the repayment of the bond in these circumstances.
As the tenant has been unsuccessful in his application, I cannot reimburse the filing fee.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing, but the respondent did not attend.
The respondent has been in contact with the Tribunal and advised that they would not be attending the hearing as this claim had nothing to do with them.
I accept that the fixed term tenancy that was the subject of this tenant claim related to the previous owners and not Cypress Investment Holdings Limited (CIH). However, the subsequent eviction was as a direct response to the actions of the CIH and not the previous owners.
309 Don Buck Road was a development of 4 units on one site.
The background to this claim is that the tenant entered a 5-year fixed term tenancy with the previous owner in June 2023. The tenancy was at 309 A Don Buck Road, Massey and was to terminate on 25 June 2028.
The rent was set at a below market price of $400.00 and was fixed for the 5 years term.
After the High Court awarded possession of the property to the respondent following the purchase of the property through the mortgagee sale, the eviction process began.
On 21 August 2025, a Court Bailiff served each tenant with an eviction notice requiring them all to leave permanently by 10am on 28 August 2025. The tenant did not leave as required to do so.
When the tenant saw the eviction notice he spoke to the bailiff and said this is a dispute between the old owner and the new owner and they should speak to them. The tenant said that under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), the new owner had to take over the tenancy. The tenant said the new owner did not have the jurisdiction to evict him. The tenants felt that his position was secure and was not overly worried at that time.
The tenant recalls seeing the mortgagee sale sign outside on the road in 2024.
On 28 August 2025, the bailiff came to the property with a locksmith and a Police officer. The tenant was forced to leave the property with only his car keys and mobile phone. Subsequently the tenant was permitted to return on 29 th and 30 th August 2025 to collect his possessions.
The tenant was traumatised at what happened to him after the eviction. He had to sleep in his car for 3 weeks despite having paid rent up to 31 August 2025. He incurred moving costs of $1600.00, lost a lot of his belonging estimated to be valued at $5000.00 and suffered emotional harm. He had paid the previous owner $400.00 in bond which he has not recovered.
The tenant paid cash for his rent to the previous owner right up to August 2025. Unlawful termination of a fixed term tenancy:
The tenant has now left the property and filed an application before the Tribunal claiming that he had been unlawfully evicted from the tenancy, when he had a legitimate fixed term tenancy.
Furthermore, the tenant seeks to return to the property and damages for the landlord’s breach.
The tenant had a fixed term tenancy with the previous owner of the property.
The property was sold at a mortgagee sale. The new owners obtained a possession order from the High Court, and the tenant was evicted by the bailiff.
Section 62 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that a tenancy may be terminated by a possession order made by the High Court or District Court following a mortgagee sale.
The eviction was carried out pursuant to a valid court order. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to review the lawfulness of a High Court possession order.
There is no evidence of any unlawful act by the landlord or purchaser in relation to the termination of the tenancy or the eviction.
The tenants’ claim that their fixed term tenancy was unlawfully terminated is dismissed.
The claim for damages and exemplary damages is also dismissed, as there is no evidence of an unlawful act under the RTA.
Where a property is sold at a mortgagee sale and a possession order is obtained from the High Court, the tenancy is lawfully terminated by operation of law. The Tribunal cannot award exemplary damages in these circumstances. The tenant claims are dismissed:
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The tenant claims have been set out and reasoned above.
The tenant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that his fixed term tenancy was unlawfully terminated.
The tenant does not have the right to re-enter of the property as a tenant under his previous tenancy agreement.
The tenant’s claims are dismissed.
The tenant was clearly affected by the eviction and the direct consequences of that, but the Tribunal is not in a position to assist with the losses incurred from a lawful eviction from the tenancy. Suppression/Bond/filing Fee:
The tenant has sought suppression of his name and identifying details. Even though he has not been successful, I am granting suppression to both the tenant and respondent. Neither party were at fault and there is no merit in publishing even parties name and details.
The Bond was not lodged with the bond centre and was taken be the previous owner. The landlord is not responsible for the repayment of the bond in these circumstances.
As the tenant has been unsuccessful in his application, I cannot reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5338101 — Exemplary damages at 309A Don Buck Road, Massey, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5338101 — Exemplary damages at 309A Don Buck Road, Massey, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions