What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5348873 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 5348873?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5348873?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5348873?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13632585-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5348873 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 5348873?

Individual award amounts are in the official MoJ PDF. Claim amounts appear on this page when claims and net totals reconcile.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5348873?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5348873?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13632585-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5348873 — Exemplary damages

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1100.00 to [The tenant/s] immediately.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $1,025.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The remainder of the landlord and tenant claims are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 22 April 2026. The landlord attended with his wife in support. The tenant attended with his wife in support.
The hearing has taken place over three dates; 8 December 2025, 22 January 2026 and 22 April 2026.
The tenant rented a flat from the landlord. The tenancy began on 10 November 2024 and ended on 12 November 2025. The landlord and his wife lived in the main house on the same property. Recusal/Conflict of interest
The landlord has disclosed a potential conflict of interest due to a mutual connection which I must consider.
There is a presumption in favour of disqualification if the adjudicator has a financial interest in the proceedings (see Muir v Commissioner of Inland Revenue & Anor [2007] NZCA 334 at [38] and [43]). I do not have any financial interest in the outcome of these proceedings.
The test for disqualification on the basis of apparent bias is whether a fair minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased. (see Muir v Commissioner of Inland Revenue & Anor [2007] NZCA 334 at [38] and [43] and [62])
This assessment involves a two stage enquiry: a. Firstly what are the actual circumstances which have a direct bearing on the suggestion the judicial officer was or may be seen to be biased? This factual inquiry should be rigorous. b. Secondly, would those circumstances lead a fair-minded lay observer to reasonably apprehend that the judicial officer might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the case? What are the actual circumstances which have a direct bearing on the suggestion the judicial officer was or may be seen to be biased?
Following the end of the hearing on 22 April as the landlord, [The landlord/s], was exiting the hearing room he informed me that he plays bridge with a cousin of mine.
The person referred to by the landlord is actually a relative of my husband. She is someone that I see at extended family gatherings. She did not have any part in this hearing.
The tenants had already left the hearing room when this matter was raised and although the Registrar looked outside the hearing room for them, she did not see them.
I informed the landlord that he had raised a potential conflict of interest which I would need to consider.
On the same day I issued a Directions Order disclosing the matter that had been raised and seeking submissions from both parties as follows: “The parties may file submissions strictly in respect of Adjudicator recusal in this matter by email to [Email address] by 5pm Friday 24 April 2026.”
Both parties responded to the Tribunal.
The landlord in his response to the possibility of a bias states: “We do not believe the relationship between myself and [name redacted], the adjudicators husband’s cousin, is close enough to be a conflict of interest in this matter and we are happy to continue.”
The tenant in their response to the possibility of a bias states: “Thank you for the opportunity to provide submissions regarding the potential conflict of interest raised at the hearing. Given the connection disclosed between the landlord and the Adjudicator’s extended family, I respectfully submit that, in the interests of fairness and maintaining the appearance of impartiality, it would be appropriate for the matter to be heard by a different adjudicator. While I do not suggest any actual bias, I believe it is important that the process remains fully independent and free from any perceived conflict.”
I do not know the landlord and have never seen him prior to the current proceedings. Would those circumstances lead a fair-minded lay observer to reasonably apprehend that the judicial officer might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the case?
Neither party suggests there is any actual bias although the tenant states there is the need for the appearance of impartiality.
I agree that there is no actual bias as I have no knowledge or connection with the landlord outside of this hearing and my responsibility as a judicial officer is to determine the matter according to the law and the evidence presented,
In light of the fact that I immediately disclosed the potential of a conflict to the tenant and gave them an opportunity to respond I do not think the fair minded observer would apprehend the manner in which this was disclosed would create an actual or apparent bias. I did not trigger any engagement with the landlord.

Should I recuse myself?

The bar for a judicial officer recusing themselves is high as the judicial office must be seen to be above influence
I must decide firmly and fairly not acceding readily to suggestions of advice.
Therefore, I find that because there is no suggestion of actual bias, I have no knowledge or connection with the landlord outside of this hearing and acted transparently as soon as I became aware of a mutual connection the grounds for recusal are not made out in this case. I decline to recuse myself in this matter. The Claims
The parties’ claims were clarified at the hearing on 8 December 2025 and recorded in the adjournment order as follows:
The premises in question are referred to as a “granny flat”. The tenant claims that they cannot lawfully be rented out as a separate dwelling from the main house. The landlord disputes this.
The tenant seeks exemplary damages and/or compensation from the landlord and claims the following: (a)The bond was not lodged within the required time (b)The tenancy agreement was not compliant as the landlord failed to include a signed statement with details of the property’s current level of compliance with Healthy Homes standards and failed to provide an insurance statement. (c)The landlord breached their quiet enjoyment of the premises. (d)The landlord’s notice to end the fixed term tenancy was retaliatory. (e)Reimbursement of filing fee.
The landlord seeks compensation from the tenant as follows: (a)Reimbursement of $234.60 for repair of the stove hob. (b)Repair of bathroom vanity mirror in the sum of $507.84 (c)Water charges of $307.81 (d)Cost of obtaining [City Council] property file - $78.50. (e)Reimbursement of filing fee.
The Tribunal will deal with each claim in turn. Burden of proof
The burden is on the party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal to prove the claim on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not). They must prove that the other party has breached its obligations and the loss (or consequence) they have suffered because of that breach together with the cost to remedy. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated:“...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.”
For the sake of brevity, I have not referred to all of the evidence in this decision, however, the parties can be assured that I have carefully considered all of the evidence filed.

Are the premises unlawful residential premises?

The tenant claims that the premises are unlawful residential premises and seeks a rent refund. The Tribunal may declare premises to be unlawful residential premises. See section 77(2)(ac) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Residential premises are unlawful if they cannot be lawfully occupied for residential purposes by that person generally or for the particular residential purpose for which that person is granted occupation, and the landlord has caused or contributed to the unlawful occupation by failing to comply with sections 36 or 45(1)(c) RTA. See section 78A(2) RTA.
In support of this claim the tenant stated that the premises were advertised as a granny flat, but no record of legal consent was provided to the tenant. A residential tenancy agreement was signed. They are fully self-contained. The premises are separated from the main dwelling by a garage, but the tenant questioned whether there was a fire wall between the dwellings and whether the unit was legally able to be rented as a separate dwelling.
The landlord provided a copy of a LIM report obtained when he purchased the premises in 2020 which records a code of compliance certificate issued in respect of amendments to the granny flat dated 3 March 1998.
At the hearing on 22 January 2026 the tenant produced an email thread of communication with the council including an email from [The advisor] from the building help desk at [City Council] dated 20 January 2026 in response to a query from the tenant which included the statement “I have spent some time checking and I cannot see any fire-rating separation between the Granny Flat and the house. I conclude therefore that it was consented as a Granny Flat only (as per the plan layout) and not approved suitable as a Minor Dwelling for renting.”
The landlord sought the opportunity to consider and respond to this new evidence so the hearing was adjourned. On 22 April 2026 the landlord referred to a document filed by him from [The advisor] dated 4 February 2026 stating that he retracted the earlier statement as copied below:
The landlord produced a letter from a lawyer who reviewed the council property file and provided an opinion that the premises were lawful.
I find that the tenant has failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the premises are unlawful residential premises for the following reasons; (a)There was a code of compliance certificate issued for the premises including the granny flat dating back to 1998. The [City council] rating invoice showed that the landlord is paying rates for two units at the address. (b)There is insufficient evidence that the landlord failed to take all reasonable steps to ensure that, at the commencement of the tenancy, there was no legal impediment to the occupation of the premises for residential purposes. The premises were advertised as home and income. The landlord obtained a LIM report at purchase and advised that as the granny flat had a code of compliance, he understood it to be legal. (c)As there is conflicting evidence presented from the [City council] and [The advisor] did not attend to give evidence, I am not satisfied that the tenant has provided sufficient evidence to prove that the unit is not lawful. (d)The tenant claims that there was a failure by the landlord to notify them that the premises were complaint, however, there is no automatic requirement in the RTA to provide this information to the tenant. There was no issue raised by the tenant throughout the tenancy regarding the condition or lawfulness of the premises.
I turn now to the remainder of the claims. Tenant Claims

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

[The tenant/s] claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The tenancy commenced in November 2024. The landlord did not lodge the bond until September 2025. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied 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 stated that he has been a landlord for many years. He offered no explanation for failing to lodge the bond and accepted there had been an oversight. He stated that he lodged the bond as soon as he became aware in September 2025 and claimed there was no effect on the tenant.
I find that a failure by an experienced landlord to lodge a bond and the absence of any evidence of an attempt to lodge the bond until almost ten months after the tenancy commenced amounts more probably than not to an intentional act. The landlord’s obligation was to lodge the bond, irrespective of whatever explanation he has for it not being lodged.
The landlord effectively had possession and possibly the use of the tenant’s money for over 10 months and failed to comply with his obligation to protect the bond payment by lodging it in the Bond Centre.
The tenants stated that discovering that the landlord had lodged the bond late made them feel insecure and stressed.
Finally, a failure to lodge the bond is not in the public interest, as the obligation to lodge a bond undermines the legislated arrangement for the management of residential tenancies in this country. Also, the interest on bond money helps to pay for the tenancy advice and dispute resolution services. The fewer bonds that are lodged, the more the taxpayer must then contribute.
I have considered the factors above and also that this is the first breach regarding bond I am aware of by this landlord together with the fact that the bond was lodged before the tenant became aware of the breach. I find that exemplary damages at the lower end of the scale being one third of the maximum in the sum of $500.00 is appropriate.

Did the landlord breach the duties in respect of the tenancy agreement?

[The tenant/s] claims that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 13 and 13A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 by failing to provide a Healthy Homes Statement and insurance statement with the tenancy agreement.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $750.00. See section 13A(1F) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord denies this and states that the information was shown to the tenant and it was up to them to take a photocopy if they wished to have the details.
The tenant denies being shown this information.
The onus is on the landlord before the tenancy commences to provide the tenant with a copy of the tenancy agreement pursuant to section 13 of the RTA.
The requirements for the content of the tenancy agreement are recorded in section 13A of the RTA and include a requirement to provide a statement signed by the landlord that the landlord will comply with healthy homes standards and including the information prescribed by the regulations and also information about the insurance for the premises pursuant to section 13A (1CA) and (2) RTA. The tenancy agreement provided to the tenant did not contain this.
The onus is on the landlord to provide this information as part of the agreement. The landlord failed to do this. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied 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 stated that he has been a landlord for many years. The requirements for a tenancy agreement are readily available and landlords have a responsibility to be aware of these. In the circumstances I find that the failure to be aware of the legislation and provide a compliant tenancy agreement was intentional.
The landlord stated that there was no effect on the tenants as they did not complain of any healthy homes issues. The tenants stated that they were new to the country and the effect on them when they discovered the landlord in September 2025 that the landlord had not been compliant with requirements was to lose trust in the landlord.
It is in the public interest that landlords take seriously their obligations and comply with the tenancy agreement requirements. These are in place for the tenant’s protection and to ensure that tenants are aware that the premises are provided with information relevant to the tenancy.
I have considered the factors above and also that this is the first breach regarding the tenancy agreement I am aware of by this landlord. I find that exemplary damages at the lower end of the scale being one third of the maximum in the sum of $250.00 is appropriate.

Did the landlord breach the tenant quiet enjoyment of the premises?

The tenant claims that the landlord breached their quiet enjoyment of the premises.
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
The tenant claims that the landlord has breached their quiet enjoyment by approaching them unannounced and that this caused stress and interfered with their peaceful use of the property.
The tenant sent an email to the landlord asking him to message before he knocked on the door.
The landlord stated that he understood there was a good relationship between himself and the tenants where he offered them fruit and vegetables from the garden and knocked on the door to discuss matters relating to the tenancy. He stated that he maintained regular communication regarding the tenancy.
The landlord stated that he knocked on the door to discuss matters or spoke to the tenant’s wife on occasions if he saw her at the clothesline. He stated that he did not enter the tenant’s premises without their consent. He advised that when he got the message that the tenants did not want him to knock on the door he respected this and from then on messaged before hand.
The tenant acknowledged that the landlord did not enter the premises with out consent but stated that their quiet enjoyment was breached due to the landlord knocking on the door causing them stress and approaching them when they were at the clothesline.
The tenant stated that the landlord knocked on the door after dark to complain about their internet usage. The landlord stated this was because the tenants used his [Streaming service] but the tenants denied this and there was no evidence provided to support the landlord’s claim.
The difficulty in this case is that there were blurred lines between the landlord and tenant exterior of the premises due to the close proximity of the two dwellings. This has caused the tenant to feel that their privacy was invaded when the landlord approached them at the clothesline or knocked on the door at night.
I accept that the landlord did not intend to cause stress and believed that he had a good relationship with the tenant. However, when one party to a tenancy is operating a rental business and the other party is seeking to have peace and privacy in their home this can create difficulty. The landlord must ensure that they allow the tenant privacy and do not interfere with the quiet enjoyment of their home. Approaching the tenant while they hang out their laundry or knocking on their door at night time is not professional and is an intrusion on the tenant’s use of the premises.
I find on the balance of probabilities that the landlord’s actions amount to an interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment of the premises.

Should the Tribunal order exemplary damages or compensation?

Exemplary damages are punitive in nature whereas compensation is ordered to compensate for the loss to the tenant due to the breach.
As stated in paragraph 73 I accept that the landlord did not do this intentionally and I am not satisfied that the actions amounted to harassment, therefore no exemplary damages will be ordered. However, the effect of the breach was to cause the tenants a loss of enjoyment of the premises.
Rather than out of pocket expenses the Tenants’ claim for compensation is in the nature of general damages for the loss of enjoyment of the premises due to the landlord’s actions. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to make such award pursuant to section 77(2)(n) of the Act: Eayrs v Hindmarsh, DC Wellington, TT223/93, 12 November 1993. Awards of compensation are generally modest.
Having considered the evidence and submissions of both parties I find that the landlord’s actions caused stress to the tenants but as there was no actual entry to the premises without consent this is at the lower end of the scale. Ordering compensation for loss of enjoyment of premises is not an exact science and I find it appropriate to order a modest lump sum in the circumstances. I order the landlord to pay the tenant $275.00 in compensation being half of one weeks rent.

Was the notice to terminate retaliatory?

On 31 August 2025, the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the fixed term tenancy on the expiry of the fixed term being 12 November 2025. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.
Section 54 of the RTA is the provision relating to retaliatory notices. Section 54 states that it applies to notices to terminate given under section 51 of the RTA. Section 51 relates to terminating periodic tenancies so does not apply in this case.
This tenancy was a fixed term tenancy due to end on 12 November 2025.
The section that relates to ending a fixed term tenancy is section 60A of the RTA. This states that a fixed term tenancy will automatically become a periodic tenancy unless within the effective period either party gives written notice to the other party of their intention not to continue with the tenancy.
The effective period starts 90 days before and ends 21 days before the end of the fixed term, in this case 12 November 2025.
As the landlord gave notice on 31 August 2025 not to continue the tenancy, this was within the effective period. Therefore, the landlord was entitled to end the fixed term tenancy.
The application for an order that the notice was retaliatory is dismissed. Landlord claims

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 12 November 2025. The landlord seeks payment of water invoices in the sum of $307.81 and provided water rates invoices.
The landlord is responsible for all outgoings that apply whether or not the premises is occupied. That is why the landlord is responsible for fixed charges on the water bills as these are incurred regardless of whether the premises are occupied.
The tenant is responsible for all outgoings in respect of the tenancy premises that are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s occupation of the premises or the tenant’s use of the facilities. See section 39 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The landlord stated that the tenant agreed to pay the fixed water charges, however, section 11(3) of the RTA states that any purported waiver by the tenants of their rights under the Act is of no effect.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that the landlord has proved on the balance of probabilities that the tenant is liable for any further water payments as the fixed charges were not deducted from water charged to the tenant. Therefore, this claim is dismissed.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
The landlord claimed the following damage was caused during the tenancy:
Damage to the stove hob (a) In August 2025 the tenant reported that the gas hob ignition was not working. The landlord arranged for [Gasfitter] to investigate and repair the hob. The report of the [Gasfitter’s] contractor stated that the damage was beyond fair wear and tear and stated as follows: “We do not see electrode snapping by itself like this – normal what you would see is a small hair line crack due to wear and tear/old age. Sparker/electrode can only snap like this if an external force is applied is dropping of pots/pans on it accidentally. The top of the electrode was missing so tenant would’ve seen the part that had snapped as well. These sit in the fire all their lives and I’ve seen some 20+ years still going. This is not wear and tear.”(stet) (b) The tenants stated that they did not know how the damage was caused and claimed that it was caused by fair wear and tear. (c) I have considered the evidence, and I am satisfied on the report from the [Gasfitter] contractor that the landlord has proved that it is more probable than not that the damage was caused by the tenants and was more than fair wear and tear. The amount ordered is proved and is less than the landlord’s insurance excess. An invoice has been provided.
Damage to the bathroom vanity mirror (a) The landlord sought the sum of $507.84 for repair of the bathroom vanity mirror following the end of the tenancy. (b) In support of the claim the landlord provided a copy of the entry inspection photograph for the next tenancy dated 25 November 2026. (c) The tenants disputed liability for this damage as it was not raised with them at the end of their tenancy or mentioned in the exit inspection. The photograph provided was taken two weeks after the tenancy ended. (d) Having considered the evidence I find that the landlord has failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove on the balance of probabilities that the damage occurred during this tenancy as the damage was not seen at the end of the tenancy but two weeks later. (e) Therefore, this claim is dismissed.

Should the tenant pay compensation for the lawns?

The landlord raised a further claim at the hearing on 22 April 2026 regarding lawnmowing and sought compensation for lawnmowing on the basis the tenant had agreed to mow the lawns and failed to do so as often as agreed. This was not contained in the application filed by the landlord. The Tribunal heard conflicting evidence from the parties regarding this.
There is no clear distinction between the tenant lawn and the landlord lawn, and the tenant has no obligation to mow the landlord lawn. There is no written evidence setting out the clear terms of any agreement regarding the lawn. The landlord sought compensation based off a contractor price but stated that he actually mowed the lawns himself. I find that there is insufficient evidence to prove this claim.

Should either party pay costs?

The landlord seeks that the tenant reimburse the costs of obtaining the council property file and the obtaining a legal opinion regarding the lawfulness of the premises.
Section 102 of the RTA states that there is no automatic power for the Tribunal to award costs. The exceptions are: (a) In the opinion of the Tribunal the proceedings are vexatious or frivolous - The landlord claims that this is so. However, as the tenant has had some success with their claims, I find that there was some merit in their claims and the threshold for vexatious or frivolous has not been met. (b) Where the parties were represented by counsel – Although the landlord obtained a legal opinion neither party were represented by counsel at the hearings. (c) Where in the opinion of the Tribunal the matter ought to have been resolved at mediation – as both parties filed multiple claims against the other I find that it is reasonable that the matter was dealt with by a Tribunal hearing. (d) Where one party failed to attend the hearing without good cause – this does not apply in this matter as both parties attended the hearings.
Both parties seek reimbursement of their filing fee. The Tribunal has a discretion to order reimbursement of the filing fee if parties have been partially successful with their claims pursuant to section 102(4)(b) RTA.
As both parties have had some success with their claims I decline to order either party to reimburse the other’s filing fee as a reimbursement each way would be a nullity.
For the above reasons I find that there are no grounds to order costs in this matter. Suppression
The Tribunal may on the application of any party or on its own initiative make a suppression order, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. Section 95A (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant has applied for suppression. Having considered the factors including that both parties have had some success with their claims the Tribunal finds that the interests of the parties outweigh the public interest in their details being published and orders suppression of both parties’ names and the tenancy address.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5348873 — Exemplary damages

Tenancy Tribunal case 5348873 — Exemplary damages

Order

Reasons

Should I recuse myself?

Are the premises unlawful residential premises?

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

Did the landlord breach the duties in respect of the tenancy agreement?

Did the landlord breach the tenant quiet enjoyment of the premises?

Should the Tribunal order exemplary damages or compensation?

Was the notice to terminate retaliatory?

How much is owed for water rates?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should the tenant pay compensation for the lawns?

Should either party pay costs?

Order

Reasons

Should I recuse myself?

Are the premises unlawful residential premises?

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond?

Did the landlord breach the duties in respect of the tenancy agreement?

Did the landlord breach the tenant quiet enjoyment of the premises?

Should the Tribunal order exemplary damages or compensation?

Was the notice to terminate retaliatory?

How much is owed for water rates?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Should the tenant pay compensation for the lawns?

Should either party pay costs?