How much money was awarded in case 5366265?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5366265?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5366265?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12676111-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5366265?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5366265?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5366265?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12676111-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5366265 — Exemplary damages

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5366265 about?

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

Order

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

By agreement the tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], either by the tenant giving 21 days notice or 5pm on Saturday 31 January 2026, whichever happens first.

By way of declaration the compensation/exemplary damages claims of both parties are withdrawn, in order that they may make new claims.

Reasons

The landlord, tenant and guarantor all attended the hearing, by telephone.

On 9/10/2025 the landlord sought termination of the tenancy, and a possession order based on a 7 day termination notice under section 59B(6) issued on 7/10/2025.

Previously, on 1/10/2025 the landlord issued a section 56 notice for breach of section 40(2)(c) &(3).

In response, on 14/10/2025, the tenant sought a declaration declaring the termination notice invalid.

Both parties also claimed compensation and exemplary damages which each attempted to increase the day before the hearing.

The tenancy began on 7/8/2025 and was for a fixed term to 6/8/2026 at $600.00 rent per week.

An issue arose during the tenancy about possible methamphetamine contamination.

Both parties provided methamphetamine testing reports which showed different levels of possible contamination.

The landlord wanted the tenant to move out so the premises could be decontaminated.

The tenant also wanted to move out but needed time to find a new tenancy.

After discussions between the parties an agreement was reached about ending the tenancy early.

For the avoidance of doubt the Tribunal would not have terminated the tenancy under section 59B because of the recent High Court decision of Nisbet v Te Ahuru Mowai Ltd Partnership [2025] NZHC 2467.

At clause [40] His Honour Grice J found: a. First, s 59B is not engaged. It only applies if “testing in accordance with a relevant prescribed method establishes contamination ... at a level that is above a relevant maximum inhabitable level prescribed for that contaminant”.38 As both the adjudicator and District Court Judge recognised, there are no regulations currently in force that prescribe either a method of contamination testing or a maximum inhabitable level for methamphetamine. There has accordingly been no testing under a prescribed method nor is there any contamination levels prescribed against which to determine that the premises are uninhabitable.39 In the absence of regulations, it is not for the Tribunal or the Court to apply another source of guidance. Other cases which have referred to the recommendations in the Gluckman report and other similar sources referred to different sections of the Act.40

Due to the agreement reached between the parties the Tribunal did not need to exercise the discretion as to whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy under section 56.

Nor was it necessary for the Tribunal to determine whether the suggested level of methamphetamine contamination occurred during the tenancy, was sufficient to cause damage or rendered the premises uninhabitable.

Those are matters which will need to be determined if either party wishes to make new claims for compensation and or exemplary damages.

No filing fees are awarded because the fees effectively cancel each other out.

Suppression is granted to both parties pursuant to section 95A(4) because I consider it is reasonable to do so in the interests of both parties, taking into account they reached an agreement.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details.
By agreement the tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], either by the tenant giving 21 days notice or 5pm on Saturday 31 January 2026, whichever happens first.
By way of declaration the compensation/exemplary damages claims of both parties are withdrawn, in order that they may make new claims.

Reasons

The landlord, tenant and guarantor all attended the hearing, by telephone.
On 9/10/2025 the landlord sought termination of the tenancy, and a possession order based on a 7 day termination notice under section 59B(6) issued on 7/10/2025.
Previously, on 1/10/2025 the landlord issued a section 56 notice for breach of section 40(2)(c) &(3).
In response, on 14/10/2025, the tenant sought a declaration declaring the termination notice invalid.
Both parties also claimed compensation and exemplary damages which each attempted to increase the day before the hearing.
The tenancy began on 7/8/2025 and was for a fixed term to 6/8/2026 at $600.00 rent per week.
An issue arose during the tenancy about possible methamphetamine contamination.
Both parties provided methamphetamine testing reports which showed different levels of possible contamination.
The landlord wanted the tenant to move out so the premises could be decontaminated.
The tenant also wanted to move out but needed time to find a new tenancy.
After discussions between the parties an agreement was reached about ending the tenancy early.
For the avoidance of doubt the Tribunal would not have terminated the tenancy under section 59B because of the recent High Court decision of Nisbet v Te Ahuru Mowai Ltd Partnership [2025] NZHC 2467.
At clause [40] His Honour Grice J found: a. First, s 59B is not engaged. It only applies if “testing in accordance with a relevant prescribed method establishes contamination ... at a level that is above a relevant maximum inhabitable level prescribed for that contaminant”.38 As both the adjudicator and District Court Judge recognised, there are no regulations currently in force that prescribe either a method of contamination testing or a maximum inhabitable level for methamphetamine. There has accordingly been no testing under a prescribed method nor is there any contamination levels prescribed against which to determine that the premises are uninhabitable.39 In the absence of regulations, it is not for the Tribunal or the Court to apply another source of guidance. Other cases which have referred to the recommendations in the Gluckman report and other similar sources referred to different sections of the Act.40
Due to the agreement reached between the parties the Tribunal did not need to exercise the discretion as to whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy under section 56.
Nor was it necessary for the Tribunal to determine whether the suggested level of methamphetamine contamination occurred during the tenancy, was sufficient to cause damage or rendered the premises uninhabitable.
Those are matters which will need to be determined if either party wishes to make new claims for compensation and or exemplary damages.
No filing fees are awarded because the fees effectively cancel each other out.
Suppression is granted to both parties pursuant to section 95A(4) because I consider it is reasonable to do so in the interests of both parties, taking into account they reached an agreement.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5366265 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5366265 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions