How much money was awarded in case 5343504?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5343504?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5343504?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12610159-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5343504?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5343504?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5343504?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12610159-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 7, 5 Coates Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5343504 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5343504 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5343504 — net $28.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$28.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$28.00

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

[The landlord/s] is granted possession of the premises at Unit/Flat 7, 5 Coates Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216 immediately.

Raymond Barnes must pay [The landlord/s] $28.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

On 15 September 2025 the landlord filed an application seeking termination of the tenancy for anti-social behaviour and for breach of the tenant’s obligations, an order allowing entry into the premises, and reimbursement of the filing fee.

The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. [Tenancy Manager], Tenancy Manager, appeared for the landlord.

The tenant did not appear. Unsuccessful attempts were made to join the tenant to the hearing by telephone. The Tribunal was satisfied that the tenant was properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in their absence.

At the hearing the Tribunal allowed the landlord to amend their claim. The landlord no longer sought termination of the tenancy under sections 55A and 56 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”). The landlord amended their claim to seek possession of the property following the expiry of a 90-day notice issued under section 51(1) of the Act. The landlord also withdrew their claim for an order granting access to the property.

The Tribunal considers there was no prejudice to the tenant in allowing the landlord to amend their claim. The tenant was aware of the landlord’s intention to terminate the tenancy and gain possession of the property via either section 51(1) or 55A or 56 of the Act. Relevant legal considerations

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).

With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.

That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, 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 (DC) TT233/02, 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.

Should possession of the property be granted to the landlord?

The landlord has applied for possession of the premises following the termination of the tenancy.

The tenancy ended on 13 October 2025 following the expiry of a 90-day notice that was personally served on the tenant on 14 July 2025. The tenancy terminated less than 90 days ago. The requirements of section 64(1) of the Act are satisfied.

The landlord is granted immediate possession of the property. Costs

Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Name Suppression

The landlord seeks name suppression. Under section 95A of the Act a party who has been either wholly or substantially successful is entitled to name suppression unless the Tribunal finds that there are reasons relating to the conduct of the party not to do so. In this case the landlord has been wholly successful and are granted name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5343504 — net $28.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$28.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$28.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] is granted possession of the premises at Unit/Flat 7, 5 Coates Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216 immediately.
Raymond Barnes must pay [The landlord/s] $28.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

On 15 September 2025 the landlord filed an application seeking termination of the tenancy for anti-social behaviour and for breach of the tenant’s obligations, an order allowing entry into the premises, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. [Tenancy Manager], Tenancy Manager, appeared for the landlord.
The tenant did not appear. Unsuccessful attempts were made to join the tenant to the hearing by telephone. The Tribunal was satisfied that the tenant was properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in their absence.
At the hearing the Tribunal allowed the landlord to amend their claim. The landlord no longer sought termination of the tenancy under sections 55A and 56 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”). The landlord amended their claim to seek possession of the property following the expiry of a 90-day notice issued under section 51(1) of the Act. The landlord also withdrew their claim for an order granting access to the property.
The Tribunal considers there was no prejudice to the tenant in allowing the landlord to amend their claim. The tenant was aware of the landlord’s intention to terminate the tenancy and gain possession of the property via either section 51(1) or 55A or 56 of the Act. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, 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 (DC) TT233/02, 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.

Should possession of the property be granted to the landlord?

The landlord has applied for possession of the premises following the termination of the tenancy.
The tenancy ended on 13 October 2025 following the expiry of a 90-day notice that was personally served on the tenant on 14 July 2025. The tenancy terminated less than 90 days ago. The requirements of section 64(1) of the Act are satisfied.
The landlord is granted immediate possession of the property. Costs
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Name Suppression
The landlord seeks name suppression. Under section 95A of the Act a party who has been either wholly or substantially successful is entitled to name suppression unless the Tribunal finds that there are reasons relating to the conduct of the party not to do so. In this case the landlord has been wholly successful and are granted name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5343504 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 7, 5 Coates Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5343504 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 7, 5 Coates Street, Hamilton East, Hamilton 3216

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should possession of the property be granted to the landlord?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should possession of the property be granted to the landlord?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions