What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5342181 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 5342181?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5342181?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5342181?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12461718-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5342181 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 5342181?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5342181?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5342181?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12461718-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5342181 — Tenancy dispute

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties names and identifying details.
The tenant’s application to reduce the fixed term tenancy is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing.
Both tenants attended the hearing and jointly seek the reduction of the fixed term tenancy. For ease of reference, I will refer to the tenants in the singular.
The property manager attended the hearing as agent for the landlord owner. For ease of reference, I will refer to the property manager as the landlord. Issue
The tenancy commenced on 16 February 2025. The tenancy agreement has a contractual end date of 15 February 2025.
The tenant has applied for reduction of the term of the fixed-term tenancy. The tenant seeks that the fixed-term end on 5 October 2025.
The landlord has found replacement tenants, and the next tenancy will commence on 25 October 2025.
The issue in this case is whether the fixed-term should end on 5 October 2025 and if so, whether I should award reasonable compensation to the landlord for any loss or damage to the landlord which would result from the reduction in the term of the tenancy. Relevant legal provisions
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy 1 in practical terms this means that: ... “[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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.” Relevant law - Reducing a fixed term tenancy
The usual legal position with fixed-term contracts, is that the term of the contract will be applied strictly, and it will only be in limited circumstances, that a decision maker like the Tribunal would interfere with that term.
In the case of residential tenancies, one of these circumstances is found in section 66 of the RTA, which allows for the reduction of fixed term-tenancy agreements. That provision holds in part: 66Reduction or termination of fixed-term tenancy 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02 (1)On application by a party to a fixed-term tenancy, the Tribunal may make an order reducing the term of the tenancy by a period stated in the order, and making such variations in the terms of the tenancy as are necessary because of the reduction of the term, where it is satisfied that, because of an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances, the severe hardship which the applicant would suffer if the term of the tenancy were not reduced would be greater than the hardship which the other party to the tenancy would suffer if the term were reduced. (2)Where the Tribunal makes an order under subsection (1), the Tribunal may order that the applicant pay to the other party an amount determined by the Tribunal by way of reasonable compensation for any loss or damage to the other party which would result from the reduction in the term of the tenancy.
There is a high threshold that needs to be met before the Tribunal will reduce the fixed-term. In particular the applicant will need to establish that: a. there has been a change in his or her circumstances; and b. that change was unforeseen; and c. that unforeseen change will result in severe hardship to the applicant if the tenancy is not ended; and d. the severe hardship the applicant would suffer if the term was not reduced exceeds the hardship the other party would suffer if the term was reduced.
In Elliot Lawes and ors v Comprende Limited 2 the Tribunal said:
Section 66 sets a high threshold for reducing fixed term tenancies. The jurisdiction in this section is an extension to the doctrine of frustration found in the general law of contract. In most cases, s66 is used to seek a balance between the competing interests of applicant tenants, for whom significant obligations under fixed term agreements can create severe hardship when circumstances unexpectedly turn against them, and landlords, who have financial obligations and expectations of their own arising from the same bargain.
The term “unforeseen” is a legal term defined by reference to the reverse (“foreseeability”) in cases relating to negligence (in 2 Elliot Lawes and ors v Comprende Limited [2022] NZTT 4365020 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: (a)foreseeability must be assessed objectively through the eyes of a reasonable person who has taken all reasonable steps to inform himself of the circumstances; (b)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”. (c)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 the 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”.”
Hardship is not defined in the RTA. However, the New Zealand Law Dictionary, 3 defines hardship as, “adverse repercussions whether mental or physical ranging from temporary discomfort or inconvenience to some permanent and unalterable misfortune”.
Where the Tribunal makes an order reducing the term of the tenancy, the Tribunal may order that the applicant pay to the other party an amount determined by the Tribunal by way of reasonable compensation for any loss or damage to the other party which would result from the reduction in the term of the tenancy. 4
From the outset of the hearing, I outlined the relevant legal basis on which the Tribunal can reduce a fixed-term tenancy so that the parties understood on what basis I would be deciding the matter. This case
The tenant says the unforeseen change in circumstances is that the tenant’s father was diagnosed with terminal cancer in December 2024. The tenant says at the time that he was diagnosed they were advised of options for prolonging his life and he has been receiving treatment since February 2025. The tenant 3 New Zealand Law Dictionary, 10th edition, P Spiller, Lexis Nexis New Zealand February 2022. 4 Section 66(2) of the RTA. says when she entered the fixed-term tenancy (which she signed on 20 January 2025), she was hoping some of the treatment would work. Sadly, his health has deteriorated.
The tenant says as this year has progressed, she has been under immense emotional stress as a result of her father’s health. The tenant says she has no family or friends in Auckland and therefore has no support and she says has struggled to cope with her father’s diagnosis. She says she her mental health has suffered, and she has engaged with a psychologist. She also said her mum is not doing so well. This is understandable.
The tenant has resigned from her employment. Her last day of work is 3 October 2025, and she will be moving home on 5 October 2025. She has some savings but will not be working and will be living with her parents who do not require her to pay board and will provide her with food.
The other tenant is unable to sustain the tenancy on his income alone and will be looking for alternative accommodation.
The tenant considers the landlord did not respond to her request to reduce the fixed-term of the tenancy within a reasonable time frame, which has increased her hardship.
The landlord has agreed to release the tenant from the fixed-term tenancy agreement and a new tenancy is to commence on 25 October 2025. The new tenants signed a tenancy agreement on 21 September 2025 and the tenants were only informed that replacement tenants had been found at the commencement of this hearing.
The landlord objects to the fixed-term tenancy being reduced any further than 24 October 2025 and if it is reduced the landlord seeks compensation by way of rent to the replacement tenancy commences and the difference in rent until the end of the fixed-term.
The landlord said the owner would face financial loss during the time from 5 October 2025 to 25 October 2025 of approximately 20 days of lost rent at $730 per week and said they would suffer hardship from the shortfall in rent received to the end of the fixed-term of the tenancy, which was approximately $1,280, as the new tenants are paying less rent than the current tenant.
The landlord said there is a mortgage over the property but was unable to expand on what the regular repayments were.
At the hearing the landlord did not take a particularly firm position as to whether the tenant’s circumstances could be considered an unforeseen change in circumstances. Although the landlord did suggest the change in circumstances was not urgent or immediate.

Unforeseen change in circumstances?

The tenant whose father is unwell is a young woman. I consider her evidence was genuine. I consider is likely that she did not foresee her father’s health would deteriorate as it has from when several treatment options were provided to prolong his life in late 2024 until now.
I consider the tenant would not have foreseen her own health issues arising as a result of her father’s illness and is unlikely to have foreseen, when the tenancy agreement was signed, the level of support both her parents would require at this time.
Section 66 of the RTA is intended to capture changes to tenants’ circumstances which are unavoidable and unexpected, such as suffering a job loss or ill health, which require the tenant to relocate.
I consider on the evidence provided that the tenants’ personal circumstances have changed significantly for her since the commencement of the tenancy and the changes were unforeseen. Does the unforeseen change in circumstances result in severe hardship to the tenant that exceeds hardship that the landlord will suffer if the fixed term is reduced?
The landlord has agreed to a reduction of the fixed-term of the tenancy. The landlord has confirmed in written submissions for this hearing that they have a new tenant who will move in on 25 October 2025.
If I decline to reduce the fixed-term of the tenancy then the tenancy will end on 24 October 2024 pursuant to section 50(1)(d) of the RTA, that is by way of the tenant surrendering the tenancy or delivering up vacant possession of the premises, to the landlord with the landlord’s written consent. The landlord has provided his written consent to the tenancy ending on 24 October 2025 by way of his submissions filed on the day of the hearing.
The parties have therefore agreed that the tenancy will end on 24 October 2024 in any event.
If I do not make an order reducing the fixed-term of the tenancy, the tenant’s additional liability for rent will be 19 days, being the period from 5 October 2025 to 24 October 2025 (being $1981). This is less than the bond. In the circumstances, while this may cause some financial difficulty, I do not consider this would amount to severe hardship. This is not a situation where both tenants will have to pay rent for two different properties.
While I consider the landlord’s communication could have been better, ultimately that does not alter my view the tenant will not suffer severe hardship if the fixed-term of the tenancy is not reduced. I note there is no obligation on the landlord to respond to a tenant’s request to terminate a fixed-term tenancy within a particular period and there is no obligation on landlord to agree to end tenancy early. 5
The provision in the RTA which allows for a fixed-term tenancy to be reduced is a provision that allows the Tribunal to make an order reducing the fixed-term and does not create any obligation on the landlord to agree to reduce the fixed- term of a tenancy in situations of hardship. In cases of hardship, it is appropriate for the parties to try and reach agreement but where agreement is not able to promptly be reached the party seeking to reduce the fixed-term of the tenancy should apply to the Tribunal without delay.
I appreciate the tenant is very distressed by the circumstances both in relation to her personal circumstances and the issues relating to this tenancy, and this is a relevant factor when considering hardship. However, the situation as it stands now differs from when the application was filed, in that there is now a clear end date to the tenancy. Had that not been the case, I may have found the ongoing obligations in relation to the tenancy until February 2026, would result in severe hardship for the tenant. I do not now need to consider that situation.
Accordingly, the tenant’s application to reduce the fixed-term tenancy is dismissed.

Should the tenant be reimbursed the filing fee?

The tenant has been unsuccessful in the application therefore, I decline to award the filing fee.

What order/s should be made with respect to name suppression?

Section 95A of the RTA relates to suppression orders. The relevant provisions state: (1)The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.... ...(4) The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. 5 Dmitrovic and Miles v FH 2018 Limited [2021] NZTT 4288277 at 20. (5) An order under subsection (4) may be made subject to any conditions that the Tribunal considers appropriate.
Both parties sought name suppression.
The tenant has been unsuccessful with the claim; however, I consider it is in the tenant’s interests to grant the tenant’s name suppression and consider there is little public interest in publishing the tenant’s name.
The landlord was successful in defending the application; therefore, name suppression is granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5342181 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5342181 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Unforeseen change in circumstances?

Should the tenant be reimbursed the filing fee?

What order/s should be made with respect to name suppression?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Unforeseen change in circumstances?

Should the tenant be reimbursed the filing fee?

What order/s should be made with respect to name suppression?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions