What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5364051 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 202, 155 Beach Road,

How much money was awarded in case 5364051?

Body Corporate Fines For 18 November…: $310.50 awarded to landlord; Body Corporate Security Costs For 7: $3,243.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; October 2025 Power Bill (To 29 Octob…: $302.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5364051?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5364051?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12801476-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5364051 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 202, 155 Beach Road,

How much money was awarded in case 5364051?

Body Corporate Fines For 18 November…: $310.50 awarded to landlord; Body Corporate Security Costs For 7: $3,243.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; October 2025 Power Bill (To 29 Octob…: $302.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5364051?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5364051?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12801476-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 202, 155 Beach Road, Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5364051 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5364051 — net $3,263.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
October 2025 power bill (to 29 October 2025	$302.00	October 2025 power bill (to 29 October 2025
Body Corporate fines for 18 November 2025 incident	$310.50	Body Corporate fines for 18 November 2025 incident
Body Corporate security costs for 7 to 10 November 2025	$3,243.00	Body Corporate security costs for 7 to 10 November 2025
Exemplary damages- s40(3A)(d) of the RTA	$1,000.00	s40(3A)(d) of the RTA
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,263.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,263.50

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 202, 155 Beach Road, Auckland Central, Auckland 1010, The Cube Apartments is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 5:00pm on Monday 8 December 2025.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,620.00 (BN-00080786) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $3,263.50 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,620.00 (BN-00080786) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
I am satisfied that the tenant had received proper notice of the hearing time, date and place and chose not to attend.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, possession, compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.
However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.
I am satisfied that the tenant or persons visiting her apartment with her consent have committed breaches that are cumulatively very serious, that the landlord has warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breaches, and that the Tribunal warned the tenant in its 24 July 225 Order NZTT5266655 may result in her tenancy being terminated “if the landlord brings another claim for termination for repeated similar breaches relating to the unit”.
The landlord produced evidence that several neighbours had made complaints about two incidents of anti-social and disruptive conduct by the tenant’s guests: a. On Friday 7 November 2025 when the tenant had a birthday party that commenced at around 4:30pm and ended at 6:30pm when the Police arrived and arrested two of the guests for parole violations after several neighbours complained about loud music, offensive language, loud noise, intoxicated people and one of the tenant’s guests leaving his motorcycle inside the apartment block, which is against the Body Corporate rules. The Police number for this tenant related event is P064384294; b. On Tuesday 18 November 2025, around 1:30pm, a couple were having an intense argument in the tenant’s patio. Several neighbours complained as they were distressed to see a woman “escaping from a man, by climbing from the side of the building and making her way to the front of the building to the balconies”. They stated that this woman was up “super high” and “almost fell”. Some of the complainants videoed the incident. The Police were called, and the man was taken into custody. The Police number for the tenant related event is P064499192.
The neighbours that complained about the 7 November 2025 incident were so distressed they requested security for the weekend as there was no building manager on site and they were concerned about further behaviour such as: a. Excessive loud noise; b. Domestic disturbances and violent altercation; c. Profanity, other types of offensive language, and aggressive behaviours; and d. Alcohol related spills in common areas requiring additional cleaning and intoxicated people in the building that the neighbours found threatening.
Since the 24 July 2025 Order there has also been an incident where a person, in the building with the tenant’s consent, graffitied inside the and caused considerable disturbance to the other tenants. Additionally, there has been a further incident where the tenant admitted that one of her guests brought a dog to the apartment on two known occasions in breach of the terms of her tenancy agreement and Body Corporate rules.
The Body Corporate have had so many complaints from worried, distressed and frightened tenants that it has approached the property manager seeking to have the tenant evicted.
The tenant did not appear at the hearing today, but the property manager confirmed she was aware of it and had attended the last hearing. He was disappointed that she chose not to attend. He stated that he had spoken to her about these incidents, that she had paid the Body Corporate fines for the three breaches since the 24 July 2025 Order, the Body Corporate administration fee and her power bills up to the end of September 2025. He confirmed that she had told him that on 7 November 2025, she had eight guests, that there had been no music at all, let alone loud music, that there had been a few cans of beer consumed but no one was intoxicated, she was not aware of any offensive language being used and she does not understand why the Police were called. Her version of events does not match those of the numerous complainants nor what the Police report says. She also told the property manager that the arrests for parole violations (having alcohol when they were prohibited from consuming alcohol under their parole conditions) and not for any of the anti-social conduct complained of.
I find that on the balance of probabilities, it was more likely than not the tenants guests did engage in the conduct complained of in the numerous complains received by the Body Corporate.
The tenants ongoing breaches are not capable of remedy because they have already happened, and the evidence produced at the hearing today proves the tenant has not taken all reasonably practicable steps to ensure that there have been no complaints about her use of the unit after the 24 July 2025 Order.
I am satisfied that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy as the tenant’s neighbours are reporting to the Body Corporate that they are severely distressed and worried about the tenants ongoing breaches, which they claim are interfering with their quiet enjoyment of the apartments, they pay to live in.
The tenancy is terminated.

Did the tenant harass, worry and distress the neighbours?

[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has disturbed herneighbours.
A tenant must not cause or permit interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the landlord's other tenants or of anyone else living in the neighbourhood. See section 40(2)(c) 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 40(3A)(d) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The term “Harassment” is not defined in the RTA. It is defined in s 3 of the Harassment Act 1997 which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. However, Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds (CIV-2009-019-1524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010), considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of s 38(3), rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in that case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The Judge accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person or persons.
In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
From these definitions, it seems that there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person or persons which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the quiet enjoyment of the neighbouring units occupants would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder (Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987) the Adjudicator noted that “although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.”
As set out in the Tribunals 24 July Order NZTT 5266565, the tenant or persons in the apartment building with her consent had caused significant worry, distress and concern to her neighbours and has allowed her guest to continue to do so after the 24 July 2025 Order, despite assuring Adjudicator Key that there would be no such further anti-social based incidents after her ex-partner was incarcerated. I find the tenant has repeatedly invited guests over that have engaged in behaviour that is in breach of the tenant’s obligations under the RTA, her tenancy agreement and the Body Corporate rules and in doing so has breached the quiet enjoyment of the tenant’s neighbours. I am satisfied the evidence produced by the landlord proves the tenant has intentionally committed a number of unlawful acts that have caused or permitted interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant’s neighbours, and other persons in the neighbourhood, in their use of the premises.
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.
I am satisfied that the tenant’s breaches were intentional and that an award of exemplary damages is warranted. Because: a. The tenant did nothing to ensure that her guests did not engage in anti- social conduct and behaviours that were worrying, distressing and concerning to others in the neighbourhood and her apartment building and allowed her guests to engage in behaviour conduct that had multiple Police coming to the property/neighbourhood on a frequent enough basis that her neighbours felt afraid and harassed by incidents such as the 18 November 2025 balcony event; b. The effect on the tenant’s neighbours is that they are afraid to continue living in the complex and are making regular complaints about the behavioural conduct of the tenant’s guests; c. The strong interest for neighbours and the public generally, to be able to live in reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy without their neighbours guests climbing across the front of the building to get away from an aggressive partner, having intimidating motorcycles in the internal entrance way of the building, loud parties where guests are engaged in anti-social conduct and dogs being brought into the building;
In the circumstances I consider it would be just to make an order of $1,000.00 exemplary damages.

Does the tenant have any outstanding utility bills?

The landlord has provided evidence that proves the tenant owes $302.00 for her October 2025 electricity bill. This bill covers the period to 29 October 2025.

The landlord has produced an invoice for a Body Corporate fine of $310.50 for the disturbance the tenant’s birthday party caused to the apartment blocks residents and a further invoice for $3,243.00 for private security the Body Corporate had to engage, from 8pm on 7 November 2025 to 8am on 10 November 2025, to make the other residents feel safe after the numerous incidents that they had witnessed since April 2025 and post the 24 July 2025 Tribunal Order. The residents had witnessed multiple Police vehicles at the premises on several occasions and arrests being made.
I am satisfied these costs were incurred and paid by the owner of the apartment rented by the tenant as a direct result of the tenant’s breaches of the RTA, her tenancy agreement and the Body Corporate rules and that the tenant was aware that further breaches of these obligations post the 24 July 2025 Order could result in further such fines/costs.
I award the landlord compensation for these costs. Reimbursement of filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
The tenant applied for non-publication of her name and identifying details.
The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in defending the landlord’s claims. I consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenant and her guest’s conduct in this matter, as set out in this Order above.
The tenant’s application for name suppression is dismissed for the reasons set out above.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5364051 — net $3,263.50 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
October 2025 power bill (to 29 October 2025	$302.00	October 2025 power bill (to 29 October 2025
Body Corporate fines for 18 November 2025 incident	$310.50	Body Corporate fines for 18 November 2025 incident
Body Corporate security costs for 7 to 10 November 2025	$3,243.00	Body Corporate security costs for 7 to 10 November 2025
Exemplary damages- s40(3A)(d) of the RTA	$1,000.00	s40(3A)(d) of the RTA
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,263.50
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,263.50

Order

The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat 202, 155 Beach Road, Auckland Central, Auckland 1010, The Cube Apartments is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 5:00pm on Monday 8 December 2025.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,620.00 (BN-00080786) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $3,263.50 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,620.00 (BN-00080786) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing. The tenant did not.
I am satisfied that the tenant had received proper notice of the hearing time, date and place and chose not to attend.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy for breach of the tenant’s obligations, possession, compensation, exemplary damages, refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Where the breach is not capable of remedy, the landlord is not expressly required to serve a 14-day breach notice on the tenant. A breach is not capable to remedy where the thing done, or its effect, cannot be undone.
However, unless the breach is serious, the Tribunal usually requires the landlord to have warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breach before it will exercise its discretion to terminate.
I am satisfied that the tenant or persons visiting her apartment with her consent have committed breaches that are cumulatively very serious, that the landlord has warned the tenant about the likely consequences of continued breaches, and that the Tribunal warned the tenant in its 24 July 225 Order NZTT5266655 may result in her tenancy being terminated “if the landlord brings another claim for termination for repeated similar breaches relating to the unit”.
The landlord produced evidence that several neighbours had made complaints about two incidents of anti-social and disruptive conduct by the tenant’s guests: a. On Friday 7 November 2025 when the tenant had a birthday party that commenced at around 4:30pm and ended at 6:30pm when the Police arrived and arrested two of the guests for parole violations after several neighbours complained about loud music, offensive language, loud noise, intoxicated people and one of the tenant’s guests leaving his motorcycle inside the apartment block, which is against the Body Corporate rules. The Police number for this tenant related event is P064384294; b. On Tuesday 18 November 2025, around 1:30pm, a couple were having an intense argument in the tenant’s patio. Several neighbours complained as they were distressed to see a woman “escaping from a man, by climbing from the side of the building and making her way to the front of the building to the balconies”. They stated that this woman was up “super high” and “almost fell”. Some of the complainants videoed the incident. The Police were called, and the man was taken into custody. The Police number for the tenant related event is P064499192.
The neighbours that complained about the 7 November 2025 incident were so distressed they requested security for the weekend as there was no building manager on site and they were concerned about further behaviour such as: a. Excessive loud noise; b. Domestic disturbances and violent altercation; c. Profanity, other types of offensive language, and aggressive behaviours; and d. Alcohol related spills in common areas requiring additional cleaning and intoxicated people in the building that the neighbours found threatening.
Since the 24 July 2025 Order there has also been an incident where a person, in the building with the tenant’s consent, graffitied inside the and caused considerable disturbance to the other tenants. Additionally, there has been a further incident where the tenant admitted that one of her guests brought a dog to the apartment on two known occasions in breach of the terms of her tenancy agreement and Body Corporate rules.
The Body Corporate have had so many complaints from worried, distressed and frightened tenants that it has approached the property manager seeking to have the tenant evicted.
The tenant did not appear at the hearing today, but the property manager confirmed she was aware of it and had attended the last hearing. He was disappointed that she chose not to attend. He stated that he had spoken to her about these incidents, that she had paid the Body Corporate fines for the three breaches since the 24 July 2025 Order, the Body Corporate administration fee and her power bills up to the end of September 2025. He confirmed that she had told him that on 7 November 2025, she had eight guests, that there had been no music at all, let alone loud music, that there had been a few cans of beer consumed but no one was intoxicated, she was not aware of any offensive language being used and she does not understand why the Police were called. Her version of events does not match those of the numerous complainants nor what the Police report says. She also told the property manager that the arrests for parole violations (having alcohol when they were prohibited from consuming alcohol under their parole conditions) and not for any of the anti-social conduct complained of.
I find that on the balance of probabilities, it was more likely than not the tenants guests did engage in the conduct complained of in the numerous complains received by the Body Corporate.
The tenants ongoing breaches are not capable of remedy because they have already happened, and the evidence produced at the hearing today proves the tenant has not taken all reasonably practicable steps to ensure that there have been no complaints about her use of the unit after the 24 July 2025 Order.
I am satisfied that it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy as the tenant’s neighbours are reporting to the Body Corporate that they are severely distressed and worried about the tenants ongoing breaches, which they claim are interfering with their quiet enjoyment of the apartments, they pay to live in.
The tenancy is terminated.

Did the tenant harass, worry and distress the neighbours?

[The landlord/s] claims the tenant has disturbed herneighbours.
A tenant must not cause or permit interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the landlord's other tenants or of anyone else living in the neighbourhood. See section 40(2)(c) 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 40(3A)(d) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The term “Harassment” is not defined in the RTA. It is defined in s 3 of the Harassment Act 1997 which deals with harassment in the context of either a criminal charge or the making of a restraining order against a person. However, Judge Harland in MacDonald v Dodds (CIV-2009-019-1524, District Court Hamilton, 26 February 2010), considered that the dictionary definition of “harassment” was more appropriate in the context of s 38(3), rather than the definition in the Harassment Act. The Court in that case adopted the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines “harassment” as “to trouble, worry, or distress” or “to wear out, tire out or exhaust”. The Judge accepted that harassment indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person or persons.
In the Concise Oxford Dictionary “harass” is defined as “torment by subjecting to constant interference or intimidation”. Further assistance can be obtained from the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary where harassment is defined as: Words, conduct, or action (usu. repeated or persistent) that, being directed at a specific person, annoys, alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress in that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
From these definitions, it seems that there must be evidence of some ongoing intentional actions directed at a specific person or persons which causes distress to them. Therefore, a single act of interference with the quiet enjoyment of the neighbouring units occupants would be unlikely to amount to harassment. However, in Whatiura v Shoulder (Palmerston North TT 12/87, 16 March 1987) the Adjudicator noted that “although the term usually refers to repeated acts of some kind, I take the view that it can extend to a single act on one occasion of sufficient seriousness.”
As set out in the Tribunals 24 July Order NZTT 5266565, the tenant or persons in the apartment building with her consent had caused significant worry, distress and concern to her neighbours and has allowed her guest to continue to do so after the 24 July 2025 Order, despite assuring Adjudicator Key that there would be no such further anti-social based incidents after her ex-partner was incarcerated. I find the tenant has repeatedly invited guests over that have engaged in behaviour that is in breach of the tenant’s obligations under the RTA, her tenancy agreement and the Body Corporate rules and in doing so has breached the quiet enjoyment of the tenant’s neighbours. I am satisfied the evidence produced by the landlord proves the tenant has intentionally committed a number of unlawful acts that have caused or permitted interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant’s neighbours, and other persons in the neighbourhood, in their use of the premises.
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.
I am satisfied that the tenant’s breaches were intentional and that an award of exemplary damages is warranted. Because: a. The tenant did nothing to ensure that her guests did not engage in anti- social conduct and behaviours that were worrying, distressing and concerning to others in the neighbourhood and her apartment building and allowed her guests to engage in behaviour conduct that had multiple Police coming to the property/neighbourhood on a frequent enough basis that her neighbours felt afraid and harassed by incidents such as the 18 November 2025 balcony event; b. The effect on the tenant’s neighbours is that they are afraid to continue living in the complex and are making regular complaints about the behavioural conduct of the tenant’s guests; c. The strong interest for neighbours and the public generally, to be able to live in reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy without their neighbours guests climbing across the front of the building to get away from an aggressive partner, having intimidating motorcycles in the internal entrance way of the building, loud parties where guests are engaged in anti-social conduct and dogs being brought into the building;
In the circumstances I consider it would be just to make an order of $1,000.00 exemplary damages.

Does the tenant have any outstanding utility bills?

The landlord has provided evidence that proves the tenant owes $302.00 for her October 2025 electricity bill. This bill covers the period to 29 October 2025.

The landlord has produced an invoice for a Body Corporate fine of $310.50 for the disturbance the tenant’s birthday party caused to the apartment blocks residents and a further invoice for $3,243.00 for private security the Body Corporate had to engage, from 8pm on 7 November 2025 to 8am on 10 November 2025, to make the other residents feel safe after the numerous incidents that they had witnessed since April 2025 and post the 24 July 2025 Tribunal Order. The residents had witnessed multiple Police vehicles at the premises on several occasions and arrests being made.
I am satisfied these costs were incurred and paid by the owner of the apartment rented by the tenant as a direct result of the tenant’s breaches of the RTA, her tenancy agreement and the Body Corporate rules and that the tenant was aware that further breaches of these obligations post the 24 July 2025 Order could result in further such fines/costs.
I award the landlord compensation for these costs. Reimbursement of filing fee
Section 102(4) of the RTA confirms that applicants that are wholly or substantially successful in proving their claims will have their filing fee reimbursed.
Because [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
The tenant applied for non-publication of her name and identifying details.
The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in defending the landlord’s claims. I consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenant and her guest’s conduct in this matter, as set out in this Order above.
The tenant’s application for name suppression is dismissed for the reasons set out above.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5364051 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 202, 155 Beach Road, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5364051 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 202, 155 Beach Road, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Did the tenant harass, worry and distress the neighbours?

Does the tenant have any outstanding utility bills?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Did the tenant harass, worry and distress the neighbours?

Does the tenant have any outstanding utility bills?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

At a glance

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Did the tenant harass, worry and distress the neighbours?

Does the tenant have any outstanding utility bills?

Is the tenant responsible for the 7 October 2025 Body Corporate related fines?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Did the tenant harass, worry and distress the neighbours?

Does the tenant have any outstanding utility bills?

Is the tenant responsible for the 7 October 2025 Body Corporate related fines?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions