How much money was awarded in case 5366523?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,830.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5366523?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5366523?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12978311-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5366523?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $3,830.71 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5366523?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5366523?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12978311-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5366523 — Rent arrears

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5366523 about?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5366523 — net $278.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 6 November 2025	$3,830.71	Rent arrears to 6 November 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$278.71
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$278.71

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants names and identifying details.

[The tenants] must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For David Jagusch $278.71 by 5:00pm on Tuesday 20 th January 2026, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,580.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For David Jagusch immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy. It withdrew its claim for the break lease fees that had been paid by the tenant after its application was made on 15 October 2025.

The tenants applied for a reduction of their fixed term tenancy refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Should the fixed term tenancy be reduced?

The tenants entered into a fixed term tenancy that commenced on 18 April 2025 and was due to end on 16 April 2026.

The tenants moved out of the premise on 26 September 2025 and seek to have the fixed term tenancy reduced to that date. The law

Parties enter into a fixed term tenancy for security. For tenants this is security of tenure; they can be sure they have a home for at least the agreed term. For landlords it is security of income; they can rely on a set amount of income from their investment.

If a tenant wishes to default on that contract, and the landlord accepts the repudiation, then the tenancy ends on the terms agreed. In such a situation of surrender the landlord can stipulate the terms of early surrender, provided they are reasonable. Such reasonable terms can be to ensure the aggrieved party (here the landlord) be placed in the same position as they would have been in, but for the breach of the tenancy agreement.

If the parties cannot agree to end the tenancy, it is open to that party to apply to the Tribunal to reduce the term pursuant to section 66(1) RTA.

The Tribunal can reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced.

Section 66 sets a high threshold for reducing fixed term tenancies. The jurisdiction in this section is an extension to the doctrine of frustration found in the general law of contract. In most cases, s66 is used to seek a balance between the competing interests of applicant tenants, for whom significant obligations under fixed term agreements can create severe hardship when circumstances unexpectedly turn against them, and landlords, who have financial obligations and expectations of their own arising from the same bargain.

The term “unforeseen” is a legal term defined by reference to the reverse (“foreseeability”) in cases relating to negligence (in determining whether a duty of care is owed and what damages are reasonably foreseeable) and in cases assessing damages for breach of contract (also in assessing the remoteness of damage). In both contexts, there is a body of case law which has established that: a. Foreseeability must be assessed objectively through the eyes of a reasonable person who has taken all reasonable steps to inform themselves of the circumstances; b. An outcome is foreseeable in legal terms if it is “liable to result”, “not unlikely”, “quite likely”, a “real danger”, a “serious possibility” or a “real risk”; c. The term “unforeseen” has few if any direct dictionary definitions, but by thesaurus is aligned with such concepts as “unexpected” and “without warning”. In a legal context, it must also be taken as the reverse of what is “foreseen”, thus being “not liable to result”, “unlikely”, “not a real danger”, “not a serious possibility” or “not a real risk”.

If the unforeseen circumstance test is met, the hardship test is what ultimately sets a high threshold for justifying the reduction of fixed term tenancies, as the Tribunal is tasked with balancing of the two parties competing interests. The foreseeability test is but one part of the overall test the Tribunal must apply. It is the part of the test that gets an applicant to the starting gate but is no guarantee that it will win them the race. Analysis & findings

The parties here came to an agreement to end the tenancy dependent upon a replacement tenancy being obtained and a break lease fee being paid. The break lease fee was paid but a replacement tenancy did not commence until 8 November 2025.

The tenants believed that the theft of their car from outside the rental premise was the unforeseen circumstances that lead to them feeling so unsafe in the premise they needed to end the fixed term tenancy early. Consequently, they purchased their own home, and gave the landlord notice on 4 August 2025 that they would be moving out on 26 September 2025. They have sought relief from the Tribunal in the form of an application pursuant to s66.

I firstly note that I am satisfied having heard the evidence that the landlord made all reasonable efforts to secure a replacement tenancy, but it took a while to find suitable tenants. Equally, the tenants maintained the premise and paid what they say they could afford from the date they moved out to the end of the tenancy. This is an unfortunate situation that has arisen for both parties.

I then turn to an application of s66 of the RTA to this situation.

The tenants say after the theft of their vehicle they initially, about one or two weeks after the theft, let the rental company know about the theft and asked for security lights installed. They say they got no response from the property manager, who had committed to ask the owner if he would absorb the expense of installing security lights. By 4 August 2025, the tenants had not had a response to this request. They say they couldn’t sleep and became increasingly anxious. This led them to deciding to purchase a house of their own.

On 4 August 2025, they let the landlord know they intended to end the fixed term tenancy on 26 September 2025, as they were due to move into their own home around that time and could not pay their new mortgage and full rent until a new tenant moved into the rental premise. They offered to help mitigate any loss the landlord would incur because of ending the fixed term tenancy early by paying a rent contribution of $300.00 per fortnight, towards the contractual $895.00 weekly rent until a new tenant was found. Additionally, they agreed to pay $80.00 per fortnight to maintain the lawns and gardens for this same period.

The termination notice cites the purchase of a new house as the sole reason for ending the fixed term tenancy early. It also states that the tenants cannot afford to pay the full $895.00 per week rent until a new tenant takes over the remainder of the lease, because they cannot cover the mortgage repayments and the full rent on their income.

The tenants confirmed they did not give back all the keys to the rental premise until 7 November 2025. They say this is because the landlord had made it clear that they were liable for rent and maintaining the property until a new tenant took over the lease. The landlord required the keys to be handed over at the time the exit inspection was conducted and not before that date. The tenants retained the keys are they were clear they were liable for the rent and maintaining the lawns, gardens and keeping the premise reasonably clean and tidy until new tenants moved in.

The landlord confirmed the new tenants moved into the premise on 8 November 2025 and therefore it is seeking to have the tenants held responsible for the full rent to 6 November 2025, when it essentially received vacant possession of the premise (except for one key it received on 7 November 2025).

Having considered the facts, I find: a. There has not been an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances. The purchase of a home was a goal that the tenants found they were able to realise and it was foreseeable that the tenants had enough funds to be able to purchase a home at that point, and it was clearly foreseeable that if they offered on a property, that they would be successful. I am satisfied that the tenants knew they could not end their fixed term tenancy until replacement tenants were secured and that was an unknown factor in this equation. It was always possible that it may take some time to obtain new tenants. This was a calculated risk they took which unfortunately has not progressed in their favour. b. What has changed for the tenants is that they then had a mortgage to pay and rent. This was foreseeable when they signed a contract to purchase a home whilst still being bound by a fixed-term tenancy contract. c. The amount of time it took to find a new tenant after the 4 August 2025 early termination notice was given is arguably unforeseen but likewise arguably not. It can take time to find tenants for a premise that is in the mid to upper rental levels in Auckland. Either way, s66 is clear that it must the applicants’ circumstances that have changed in an unforeseeable way, not external factors such as the rental market or time taken to secure new tenants. d. The tenants will suffer the loss of their bond if the term of the tenancy is not reduced. While they have been reduced to one income since purchasing their own home, they have stated they are financially stable and coping after having been relieved of rent and lawn/yard maintenance payments since 6 November 2025. e. The landlord would suffer severe hardship if the term is reduced as he structured his financial commitments on having guaranteed rent from his property to pay his mortgage and he has borrowed money from his family to cover the shortfall in rent so as not to have to default on his mortgage payments. He is paying his day to day living expenses for a home he runs in Double Bay in Australia, when he had to move to find employment after losing his job in New Zealand in 2023 and being unable to find work in New Zealand. The property manager gave evidence the landlord struggled to get work for some time and was only just recovering financially when the tenants unilaterally moved out and stopped paying full rent before new tenants could be secured.

Section 66 of the RTA is clear in requiring the Tribunal to establish an unforeseen change in circumstances before the respective hardships are weighed. I empathise with both parties’ circumstances. However, as an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances has not been established, I have no jurisdiction to end the tenancy, and this claim must be dismissed

How much is owed for rent?

I have found that the tenancy ended on 6 November 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. 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 Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For David Jagusch has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression

The tenants apply for non-publication of their names and identifying details.

The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

The tenants have not wholly or substantially succeeded in its proceedings. However, I do not consider publication is in the public interest or justified because of the tenants conduct or any other circumstances of the case.

Non-publication is ordered.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5366523 — net $278.71 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 6 November 2025	$3,830.71	Rent arrears to 6 November 2025
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$278.71
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$278.71

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants names and identifying details.

[The tenants] must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For David Jagusch $278.71 by 5:00pm on Tuesday 20 th January 2026, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,580.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For David Jagusch immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenants applied for a reduction of their fixed term tenancy refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Should the fixed term tenancy be reduced?

The tenants entered into a fixed term tenancy that commenced on 18 April 2025 and was due to end on 16 April 2026.

The tenants moved out of the premise on 26 September 2025 and seek to have the fixed term tenancy reduced to that date. The law

If the parties cannot agree to end the tenancy, it is open to that party to apply to the Tribunal to reduce the term pursuant to section 66(1) RTA.

I then turn to an application of s66 of the RTA to this situation.

How much is owed for rent?

I have found that the tenancy ended on 6 November 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. 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 Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For David Jagusch has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name suppression

The tenants apply for non-publication of their names and identifying details.

Non-publication is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5366523 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5366523 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the fixed term tenancy be reduced?

How much is owed for rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the fixed term tenancy be reduced?

How much is owed for rent?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions