What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5357882 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5357882?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5357882?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5357882?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13078384-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5357882 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5357882?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5357882?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5357882?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13078384-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 5, 17 Warwick Street, Richmond, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5357882 — Exemplary damages

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The applicant also had an interpreter.

The applicant has applied for compensation and exemplary damages. Background

The respondent was a listed tenant on a tenancy agreement with a third non- party, the owner of the property, recorded as the landlord.

The respondent agreed to let a room to the tenant in the property, and the applicant took up occupancy in around July 2024. There was no formal agreement and instead the arrangement was made through phone messages.

The respondent occupied the property for the entirety of the time that the applicant was renting the room.

After the applicant vacated, she says she discovered she was being overcharged for rent based on the total rent being charged on the tenancy agreement and there were also issues with the paid bond. Jurisdiction

There is a preliminary issue as to whether the Tribunal can hear the claim. This arises in two respects: a. Jurisdiction. b. Res judicata (has already been determined).

Section 77(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the RTA applies.

A “tenancy” is a right to occupy residential premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent. A “landlord” means the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under a tenancy agreement. A “tenancy agreement” means any express or implied agreement under which any person, for rent, agrees to grant a tenancy of the premises. “Premises” includes any part of any premises.

The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is excluded in certain cases. Section 5(1)(n) of the RTA excludes jurisdiction where the premises continue to be used, during the tenancy, principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the owner of the premises or by any member of the landlord’s or owner’s family.

Flatmates are not a party to the tenancy agreement but will usually have a separate arrangement with a head-tenant.

This is the case here.

The head-tenant was a tenant under a tenancy agreement made with the landlord. The applicant flatmate lived in the property under a separate arrangement. The partes are not “landlord” and “tenant”.

The respondent was also living at the premises during the tenancy and therefore, even if she was considered a “sub-landlord’, the fact that she lived at the property the entire time, would have meant the situation fell within the section 5(1)(n) exclusion.

This was a flatmate situation and not a residential tenancy situation under the RTA.

The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this claim.

In addition, the applicant has already pursued these claims in the Disputes Tribunal and on 26 September 2025 the Disputes Tribunal issued an order dismissing the applicant’s claims for a failure to prove the claims to the required civil standard.

There is no ability for a party to bring the same claims, that have already been determined in a different jurisdiction, and so even if I had found the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the claim, it would have been struck out for res judicata (having been already determined). R Harvey-Lane 05 February 2026

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The applicant also had an interpreter.
The applicant has applied for compensation and exemplary damages. Background
The respondent was a listed tenant on a tenancy agreement with a third non- party, the owner of the property, recorded as the landlord.
The respondent agreed to let a room to the tenant in the property, and the applicant took up occupancy in around July 2024. There was no formal agreement and instead the arrangement was made through phone messages.
The respondent occupied the property for the entirety of the time that the applicant was renting the room.
After the applicant vacated, she says she discovered she was being overcharged for rent based on the total rent being charged on the tenancy agreement and there were also issues with the paid bond. Jurisdiction
There is a preliminary issue as to whether the Tribunal can hear the claim. This arises in two respects: a. Jurisdiction. b. Res judicata (has already been determined).
Section 77(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the RTA applies.
A “tenancy” is a right to occupy residential premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent. A “landlord” means the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under a tenancy agreement. A “tenancy agreement” means any express or implied agreement under which any person, for rent, agrees to grant a tenancy of the premises. “Premises” includes any part of any premises.
The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is excluded in certain cases. Section 5(1)(n) of the RTA excludes jurisdiction where the premises continue to be used, during the tenancy, principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the owner of the premises or by any member of the landlord’s or owner’s family.
Flatmates are not a party to the tenancy agreement but will usually have a separate arrangement with a head-tenant.
This is the case here.
The head-tenant was a tenant under a tenancy agreement made with the landlord. The applicant flatmate lived in the property under a separate arrangement. The partes are not “landlord” and “tenant”.
The respondent was also living at the premises during the tenancy and therefore, even if she was considered a “sub-landlord’, the fact that she lived at the property the entire time, would have meant the situation fell within the section 5(1)(n) exclusion.
This was a flatmate situation and not a residential tenancy situation under the RTA.
The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this claim.
In addition, the applicant has already pursued these claims in the Disputes Tribunal and on 26 September 2025 the Disputes Tribunal issued an order dismissing the applicant’s claims for a failure to prove the claims to the required civil standard.
There is no ability for a party to bring the same claims, that have already been determined in a different jurisdiction, and so even if I had found the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the claim, it would have been struck out for res judicata (having been already determined). R Harvey-Lane 05 February 2026

Tenancy Tribunal case 5357882 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat Unit 5, 17 Warwick Street, Richmond, Christchurch

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5357882 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat Unit 5, 17 Warwick Street, Richmond, Christchurch

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions