What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5339409 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 5339409?

Break Lease Costs: $104.33 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,645.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5339409?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5339409?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12457663-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5339409 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 5339409?

Break Lease Costs: $104.33 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,645.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5339409?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5339409?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12457663-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5339409 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5339409. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 29/08/2025	$1,645.71		Rent arrears to 29/08/2025
Break Lease Costs	$104.33		Break Lease Costs

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both the landlord and tenants name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond immediately ([Bond number suppressed]) as apportioned in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant was represented by an advocate from a tenancy advocacy organisation.
The application concerns the fixed-term tenancy that the parties had entered into, which was due to end on 23 October 2025.The tenants says they should be liable only to the 5 th of August 2025 and the landlord states they should be liable till the 29 th of August 2025 as well as for the reasonable costs of re- tenanting the property.
I must determine the liability for rent from the 6 th to the 29 th of August 2025 and the break lease costs.
The tenant gave 28 days’ notice purporting to end the tenancy which expired on the 5 th of August 2025 and vacated the property to move somewhere more suitable for her health needs. The tenant’s representative submits that because the reason for termination was bona fide and medical in nature, the landlord should have released the tenant at the expiry of the notice and there should have been no ongoing liability.
The landlord submits that they took reasonable steps as soon as they became aware of the issue to re-advertise the property and re-tenant it. The property was re-tenanted on the 30 th of August 2025. They tell me the tenant should be liable for rent arrears till the 29 th of August 2025.
The landlord has also asked me to award costs for tenanting the property. The Tribunal requires costs to be actual and itemised, as articulated in Landlord v Tenant [NZTT 4319171]. The landlord has provided an itemised invoice which shows the actual hours spent on re-tenanting the property.
Section 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act grants the Tribunal the power to terminate a fixed-term tenancy where an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances causes hardship to the applicant that would exceed the hardship to the other party if the term were not reduced.
Typically, in a case where an applicant seeks to terminate a fixed-term tenancy early, they will send that request to the landlord (or vice versa), and the parties will attempt to negotiate. Where no agreement is reached, the applying party may file an application with the Tenancy Tribunal. The Tribunal will then weigh the factors in favour of exercising its power to terminate, or not doing so. Inevitably a period of time will pass whilst liability is uncertain and potentially to the detriment of the applicant.
Where the Tribunal determines that the applicant’s hardship is indeed greater than that caused to the other party and terminates the tenancy, it typically requires the applicant to cover the costs of rent until the property is re-tenanted. Further increasing the liability of the applicant. This is because, upon entering a fixed-term contract, both parties should have the benefit of the certainty that the tenancy will continue for the agreed term and that remains the default until the tribunal decides otherwise. A strict threshold is applied to maintain the sanctity of contract.
In addition, the Tribunal will typically award reasonable costs associated with re- tenanting the property.
Had this case followed the usual trajectory, I would likely have found that the hardship to the tenant exceeded the hardship to the landlord. In those circumstances I may have still declined to terminate early given that the fixed term is due to end next month on the 23 rd of October 2025 and there may have been no benefit to the tenant anyway.
On that basis, I am awarding rent arrears to 29 August. The landlord, upon learning of the tenant’s circumstances, took immediate steps to re-tenant the property and accommodate the tenant’s request thus mitigating theirs and the tenants potential losses. They successfully did so in a short period of time, and the additional rent arrears reflect only the time taken to find a new tenant. There is no failure on the part of the landlord.
I accept the tenant’s evidence that the landlord was likely to incur the cost of re- tenanting the property within two months in any event. I have therefore apportioned the break-lease cost by dividing the total claim over 12 months and awarding a two-twelfths contribution toward that cost to reflect that they are incurring the cost two months earlier than they had planned to do so.
The landlord and the tenant have both applied for the filing fee in this case. As both parties have had some success, each will bear the filing fees they incurred in making their respective applications.
The tenant has applied for suppression. Having regard to their interests and the public interest as I am empowered to by section 95A(4) I find that the tenants interest exceeds any potential public interest in the outcome. I have also granted the landlord suppression under s95A(1) on the grounds that they have been substantially successful in their application.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5339409. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Rent arrears to 29/08/2025	$1,645.71		Rent arrears to 29/08/2025
Break Lease Costs	$104.33		Break Lease Costs

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both the landlord and tenants name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond immediately ([Bond number suppressed]) as apportioned in the table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant was represented by an advocate from a tenancy advocacy organisation.
The application concerns the fixed-term tenancy that the parties had entered into, which was due to end on 23 October 2025.The tenants says they should be liable only to the 5 th of August 2025 and the landlord states they should be liable till the 29 th of August 2025 as well as for the reasonable costs of re- tenanting the property.
I must determine the liability for rent from the 6 th to the 29 th of August 2025 and the break lease costs.
The tenant gave 28 days’ notice purporting to end the tenancy which expired on the 5 th of August 2025 and vacated the property to move somewhere more suitable for her health needs. The tenant’s representative submits that because the reason for termination was bona fide and medical in nature, the landlord should have released the tenant at the expiry of the notice and there should have been no ongoing liability.
The landlord submits that they took reasonable steps as soon as they became aware of the issue to re-advertise the property and re-tenant it. The property was re-tenanted on the 30 th of August 2025. They tell me the tenant should be liable for rent arrears till the 29 th of August 2025.
The landlord has also asked me to award costs for tenanting the property. The Tribunal requires costs to be actual and itemised, as articulated in Landlord v Tenant [NZTT 4319171]. The landlord has provided an itemised invoice which shows the actual hours spent on re-tenanting the property.
Section 66 of the Residential Tenancies Act grants the Tribunal the power to terminate a fixed-term tenancy where an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances causes hardship to the applicant that would exceed the hardship to the other party if the term were not reduced.
Typically, in a case where an applicant seeks to terminate a fixed-term tenancy early, they will send that request to the landlord (or vice versa), and the parties will attempt to negotiate. Where no agreement is reached, the applying party may file an application with the Tenancy Tribunal. The Tribunal will then weigh the factors in favour of exercising its power to terminate, or not doing so. Inevitably a period of time will pass whilst liability is uncertain and potentially to the detriment of the applicant.
Where the Tribunal determines that the applicant’s hardship is indeed greater than that caused to the other party and terminates the tenancy, it typically requires the applicant to cover the costs of rent until the property is re-tenanted. Further increasing the liability of the applicant. This is because, upon entering a fixed-term contract, both parties should have the benefit of the certainty that the tenancy will continue for the agreed term and that remains the default until the tribunal decides otherwise. A strict threshold is applied to maintain the sanctity of contract.
In addition, the Tribunal will typically award reasonable costs associated with re- tenanting the property.
Had this case followed the usual trajectory, I would likely have found that the hardship to the tenant exceeded the hardship to the landlord. In those circumstances I may have still declined to terminate early given that the fixed term is due to end next month on the 23 rd of October 2025 and there may have been no benefit to the tenant anyway.
On that basis, I am awarding rent arrears to 29 August. The landlord, upon learning of the tenant’s circumstances, took immediate steps to re-tenant the property and accommodate the tenant’s request thus mitigating theirs and the tenants potential losses. They successfully did so in a short period of time, and the additional rent arrears reflect only the time taken to find a new tenant. There is no failure on the part of the landlord.
I accept the tenant’s evidence that the landlord was likely to incur the cost of re- tenanting the property within two months in any event. I have therefore apportioned the break-lease cost by dividing the total claim over 12 months and awarding a two-twelfths contribution toward that cost to reflect that they are incurring the cost two months earlier than they had planned to do so.
The landlord and the tenant have both applied for the filing fee in this case. As both parties have had some success, each will bear the filing fees they incurred in making their respective applications.
The tenant has applied for suppression. Having regard to their interests and the public interest as I am empowered to by section 95A(4) I find that the tenants interest exceeds any potential public interest in the outcome. I have also granted the landlord suppression under s95A(1) on the grounds that they have been substantially successful in their application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5339409 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5339409 — Rent arrears

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