What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5367490 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 5367490?

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 5367490?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5367490?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13295249-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5367490 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 5367490?

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 5367490?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5367490?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13295249-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5367490 — Exemplary damages

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
Qilu Development Limited must pay [The tenants] $211.37 immediately, to bank account 01-0142-0790562-00 standing in the name of [Tenant 1], calculated as shown in table below.

Qilu Development Limited must pay the tenants the bond of $3,400.00 immediately, to be distributed as follows: $2,266.67 to be paid to [Tenants 1 and 2] to account 01-0142-0790562-00; and $1,333.33 to be paid to [Tenant 3] to be paid to an account standing in [Tenant 3’s] name.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Both parties were supported by mandarin interpreters, one of each party.
[Tenants 1 and 2] appeared in the hearing today for the tenant party.
[Tenant 3] did not appear today, I am satisfied that [Tenant 3] had received proper notice of the hearing time, date and place and chose not to attend. He did not give the other two tenants his consent for them to represent him. He did not communicate with the Tribunal the reason for his non-attendance.
Weiling Wu and Zihao Wang appeared at the hearing today as representatives of the landlord.
The tenants applied for compensation, general damages, exemplary damages, refund of the bond and reimbursement of filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Evidential burden
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
The Tribunal has reviewed and considered all evidence, though not all is specifically referenced in this decision. General legal principles in relation to the award of compensation or exemplary damages
The Tribunal can award compensation where a party has been in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) or has been in breach of the tenancy agreement, and the other party has suffered a loss because of that breach. Awards of compensation in the Tribunal are generally modest. When awarding compensation, the accepted principle is that the injured party should be put in the same position as they would have been but for the breach, since there is liability for losses flowing from the breach. Factors such as the loss of amenity, stress and inconvenience suffered by the party that has proven the breach are considered when deciding the quantum of any compensation awarded.
Exemplary damages can also be awarded for breaches listed in Schedule 1A of the RTA, provided the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was intentional. Exemplary damages are a penalty designed to deter parties from intentionally engaging in the kind of behavioural conduct provided for in Schedule 1A of the RTA. However, section 109(2) of the RTA places a limit on the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to award exemplary damage for any breach where that application is made more than 12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act.

TENANTS CLAIMS

Should the fixed term tenancy be ended early?

The tenants entered into a 12-month fixed term tenancy that commenced on 7 January 2025 and was due to end on 7 January 2026.
Three tenants occupied the premise, and they had one flatmate. The tenancy agreement provided for a maximum of 5 occupants.
The tenants stated that their main reason for end the tenancy early was that the property became extremely hot during the warmer months, and none of the bedrooms had air-conditioning or adequate ventilation, making it uncomfortable and impractical to continue living there. They say the landlord was aware of this situation and agreed to the early termination of the tenancy.
The landlord agreed to end the fixed term tenancy early on the following conditions: a. The tenants found a new tenant to take over the remainder of the lease or the landlord engage some letting agents to find new tenants; b. If the tenant’s found a new tenant, they would be liable for break lease costs of $850.00 to cover the costs of vetting the potential new tenants (credit and reference checks), drawing up a new tenancy agreement, lodging a new bond, refunding the old bond; c. If the landlord’s agents found new tenants, the tenants would be liable for break lease costs of $1,700.00 to cover the costs of advertising, viewings, vetting the potential new tenants (credit and reference checks), drawing up a new tenancy agreement, lodging a new bond, refunding the old bond; and d. Paying the rent until the new tenant(s) moved into the premise.
The tenants confirmed they agreed with these terms, except they understood the rent liability ceased when a new tenant signed the tenancy agreement, not the date the new tenancy commenced. The law does not work this way. It provides for security of rental income for the landlord until a new tenant starts paying rent in place of the current tenant(s).
The tenants confirmed they all moved out over a period commencing 5 to 17 October 2025. The flatmate, Bella, was the last to move out on 17 October 2025.
The tenants arranged for cleaners to come to commercially clean the property, and remove all the rubbish in the morning of 18 October 2025, for [Tenants 1 and 2] and the flatmate to meet at the premise on the afternoon of 18 October 2025 to distribute shared property and for [Tenant 3] to return the gate keys to the landlord on 18 October 2025, at a time that suited him.
[Tenants 1 and 2] say that they gave their front door keys and mailbox keys to the two letting agents engaged by the landlord, so they could access the house for viewings. They provided text messages and photographs of the keys that they sent to one letting agent, Kirsty, on 4 October 2025. They say they did the same with the other letting agent.
The landlord confirmed it never received the keys to the house or mailbox nor the electronic gate key. Further, it confirmed it knew all the tenants had all moved out by 17 October 2025, so it took possession back of the premise on 18 October 2025 by having the locks changed. It then tried to hold the tenants liable for rent until the date the new tenant took over the tenancy, on 5 November 2025. 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 does not have to agree and can stipulate terms 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 the tenants to apply to the Tribunal to reduce the term pursuant to section 66(1) RTA.
The Tribunal 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. 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 himself 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”.
As an alternative to ending the tenancy, pursuant to s66 of the RTA, the Tribunal may also consider ending a tenancy such as this one under the common law of contract.
The common law of contract in this circumstance relates to the landlord’s unlawful termination of the fixed term tenancy by changing the locks and preventing the [Tenants 1 and 2] and their cleaner/rubbish remover from entering the premise after the locks were changed. Analysis & findings
The parties had come to an agreement to end the fixed term tenancy early, on the date a new tenant commenced a new tenancy. Until that date, the tenants would legally remain liable for rent and for reasonable costs associated with reletting the premise.
The landlord took all reasonably practicable steps to find tenants to take over the lease as soon as practicable after receiving notice in September 2025 of the tenants’ intention to end the lease early because the premise “became extremely hot during the warmer months, and none of the bedrooms had air-conditioning or adequate ventilation, making it uncomfortable and impractical to continue living there”.
The landlord started advertising the premise as soon as it was alerted that the tenants intended to end the lease early and incurred expenses of $1,060.00 flat fee for advertising, vetting potential tenants, credit and reference checks, lodging new bond and drafting a new tenancy agreement. This cost was not an unreasonable cost to pass on to the tenants, who broke the 12 months fixed term tenancy by moving out nine months after the tenancy commenced.
The tenants have sought relief from the Tribunal in the form of an application pursuant to s66 for the tenancy to be ended on 17 October 2024, as they had all moved out by this date.
I then turn to an application of s66 of the RTA to this situation. Having considered the facts, I find: a. There has not been an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances. b. What had changed for [Tenants 1 and 2] is that they were not happy the bedrooms had no air conditioning and lacked a ventilation system that would keep the house cooler and [Tenant 3] had also moved out on 5 October 2025 for reason undisclosed to the Tribunal.
Section 66 of the RTA is clear that it must the applicants’ circumstances that have changed in an unforeseeable way, not external factors such as the tenant not having done sufficient due diligence on the premise and then suffering a form of buyer’s remorse after signing up to the fixed term tenancy that they latterly discovered did not meet their cooling and ventilation requirements. It was reasonably foreseeable that if the tenant, with specific needs in a rental property, did not take undertake reasonable due diligence on the premise before signing up to a fixed term tenancy to assure themselves that the premise met their needs, that they could end up not wanting to continue with the tenancy when they found the house to hot and lacking sufficient ventilation.
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 tenant’s circumstances has not been established, I have no jurisdiction to end the tenancy under s66 of the RTA.
I now turn to the common law of contract. If a party breaches a contract so severely that it "invalidates" or allows for the termination of the contract it is known in legal terms as a material breach, fundamental breach, or repudiatory breach. Such a breach goes to the very core of the contract depriving the non-breaching party of the substantial benefit they expected, making it impossible or useless to continue the contract.
The tenants agreed to enter into the 12-month fixed term tenancy agreement (Contract) and were legally liable for rent under that Contract until the end of the tenancy. The tenancy could end at the end of the fixed term period or on the date a new tenant took over the tenancy.
The evidence proves the landlord committed a material breach of the Contract when it changed the locks and prevented the tenants from removing their shared belongings, sent their cleaners/rubbish removal away on the morning of 18 October 2025, and used its own contractors to clean and remove rubbish. This material breach showed the tenants the landlord no longer intended to be bound by the Contract and allowed the tenants to "accept" the breach, terminate the Contract, and claim damages for unlawful termination of the tenancy.
I am satisfied the landlord materially repudiated the Contract on 18 October 2025 when it had the locks changed and unlawfully took possession of the premise. Its act of sending away the tenants’ cleaners, after changing the locks, is a clear demonstration of it having taken possession and having terminated the tenancy unlawfully. It can not then rely on its contractual right to charge rent to 5 November 2025 when it so clearly took possession on the morning of 18 October 2025.
I find that the tenancy ended at 11:59pm on 17 October 2025 because the tenants were unable to access the premise from around 9am the following day. They are therefore liable for rent to 17 October 2025 and are not liable for the break lease fees as the tenancy was unlawfully terminated by the landlord before the new tenant signed up to rent the premise on 20 October 2025, and well before the new tenant moved in on 5 November 2025.
[Tenants 1 and 2] stated they did not pay rent after 14 October 2025, as they moved out on 5 October 2025, after reaching a verbal agreement with the landlord to end the fixed-term tenancy early. They were waiting to see when the new tenant would commence her/his tenancy and intended on paying the balance of the rent they owed from their bond.
[Tenants 1 and 2] confirmed [Tenant 3] also moved out of the house on 5 October 2025, but that he had paid rent until after that date, resulting in the rent records showing $19.48 in credit.
I find that the tenancy ended on 17 October 2025, there were no rent arrears, and the $19.48 rent overpayment has been credited to the tenants.
[Tenants 1,2 and 3] are all jointly and severally liable for all debts owed to the landlord and will have to work out between them whether any of them owe the others any sums of money at the end of this tenancy. If they cannot agree on division of any debts or amounts to be paid to the tenants collectively by the landlord, they can make an application to the Disputes Tribunal for assistance in determining who owes what amounts to whom and why. The Tenancy Tribunal has no jurisdiction over disputes between tenants. Did the landlord fail to itemize expenses it charged the tenants for or require an unlawful payment?
[The tenants] claim the landlord tried to charge t for break lease costs that it did not provide the tenants a breakdown for.
Section 66(2) of the RTA states: Where the Tribunal makes an order under subsection (1), the Tribunal may order that the applicant pay to the other party an amount determined by the Tribunal by way of reasonable compensation for any loss or damage to the other party which would result from the reduction in the term of the tenancy.
The tenants are entitled to a breakdown of these costs if they are being asked to pay them.
The landlord confirmed they informed the tenants that the agent had reduced the break lease costs to a flat fee of $1,060.00 for all the reletting related costs attributable to the ending of the fixed term tenancy early.
I have found that the tenancy ended by the landlord unlawfully taking possession of the premise on the morning of the 18 October 2025 and therefore the landlord had forgone its legal right to charge the tenants a break lease fee. This means whether the tenants received an itemised account for the break lease costs the landlord was seeking is a moot point now and this claim is dismissed accordingly.
The tenants were not specific about what they meant by the landlord having required them to pay an unlawful payment. These claims usually relate to requirements to pay more rent or bond than the landlord is entitled to require. It appears that the tenants may have also been referring to the break lease fees.
There was no evidence produced by the tenants that the landlord required the tenants to make any such unlawful payments to it during or after the tenancy. This claim is also dismissed for lack of evidence to prove it on the balance of probabilities.

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond within 23 working days?

[The tenants] claim 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 landlord confirmed that it knew that bonds for residential tenancies have to lodged with the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received and that they had not done so because: a. It had tried to lodge the bond within the 23 working days but there was something wrong with the Bond Centre system and the bond was rejected by the Bond Centre but the landlord was not notified that the bond had not been accepted for lodgement; b. It had not noticed that $3,400.00 of unallocated funds remained in its general ledger unaccounted for during the nine-month tenancy as it does not engage accountants; c. It only became aware of its breach on 15 October 2025, when it received the tenants application to the Tribunal; and d. It was told by Tenancy Services not to lodge the bond, on the date of the tenants’ application to the Tribunal because the Tribunal would sort the issue out at the scheduled hearing, which was 5 months later.
The RTA is clear, all landlords must lodge the tenant’s bond with Tenancy Services/the Bond Centre within 23 working days of receiving it.
Tenancy Services would have rejected the original bond lodgement form because there was no breakdown of which of the three tenants had contributed what amount to the $3,400.00 bond paid. Tenancy Services process is to contact a landlord about this type of issue so the bond can be lodged. There were no known issues with the bond system at that time.
I find that the landlord has intentionally committed an unlawful act when it failed to lodge the bond with Tenancy Services Bond Centre within 23 working days from the date they received the bond, being 7 January 2025 and retaining it for a further 5 months after becoming aware that it had breached its s19 of the RTA obligation to the tenants.
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.
Landlord’s are required to understand their responsibilities to tenants and I am satisfied the landlords should have reasonably known that the bond had to be submitted to the Bond Centre within 23 days after their receipt of it. It confirmed it was an experienced landlord and had let out premises before. The obligations placed on a landlord to put the bond into the Bond Centre on trust for the tenants is an obligation the Tribunal takes seriously. The bond is owned by the tenants, until the parties agree that all or part of the bond can be paid to the landlord to cover proven debts.
I find it would be just to require the landlords to pay a sum of $1,500.00 in exemplary damages (the maximum penalty available) because: a. The landlords intentionally held on to the bond and did not submit it to the Bond Centre for around 9 months during the tenancy and for a further five months since the tenants application to the Tribunal; b. The tenants are entitled to rely on the Bond Centre protecting the bond money that has been placed in it on trust for the tenants benefit, unless it is proven the tenant owes the landlord a debt that both parties agree can be paid by the Bond Centre to the landlord or on order from the Tribunal. The tenants money was not protected by the Bond Centre (a third independent party) for a total period of 14 months between 7 January 2025 and 13 March 2026 and it should have been; c. It is in the interests of the tenants to receive exemplary damages for the landlord’s breach; and d. it is in the public interest for landlord’s to be penalised as a disincentive to breaching their obligations pay the bond received into the Bond Centre promptly, for the protection of both parties’ interests and for addressing the breach at the earliest opportunity.
The landlord’s intentional disregard for the RTA and the protections it affords tenants warrants the maximum penalty available to the Tribunal.

LANDLORD CLAIMS

Are there rent arrears owing?

I have found the tenancy ended on 17 October 2025. The landlord provided rent records which prove there was an overpayment of rent of $19.28. This amount is to be repaid to the tenants.

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenants must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claimed the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. Additionally, the landlord claimed the tenants did not return the front door keys.
The landlord also claimed the garage electronic key was also missing at the end of the tenancy.
The tenants proved they had provided the keys to the front door and mailbox to the two agents that had been engaged on 5 October 2025 to relet the premise and claimed that [Tenant 3] was given the electronic gate key on the understanding he was to return it to the landlord on 18 October 2025. The tenants present at the hearing state that he would have done so. There was insufficient evidence for me to find that this electronic key had not been returned, as [Tenant 3] was not present at the hearing, and the landlord did not produce sufficient evidence on the balance of probabilities to prove this claim.
Additionally, the landlord sent away the tenants’ cleaners and rubbish removal contractors on 18 October 2025, choosing to use its own contractors. It cannot then hold the tenants liable for the cleaning and rubbish removal costs associated with its choice.
The landlord’s claims are dismissed for failure to prove them on the balance of probabilities.

Are the tenants 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.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord claims the following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. Broken window handle; b. Broken sensor; and c. Wall and door damage that required remediation and repainting.
The landlord says this damage is more than fair wear and tear and holds the tenants liable for this careless or intentional damage.
The landlord did not have any evidence of the condition of these areas of the premise at the start of the tenancy. It had no entry inspection photographs to prove that the damage complained of happened during the tenancy. Instead, it relied solely on its end of tenancy evidence.
The landlord has failed to provide evidence that satisfies me the damage occurred during the tenancy. Therefore, I dismiss the claims for lack of evidence to prove these claims on the balance of probabilities. Should the tenants be held liable for property management costs incurred for oversight of the cleaning, repair and maintenance contractors?
The Tenancy Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear any landlord claims for property management costs incurred for oversight of the cleaning, repair and maintenance contractors.
A landlord is running a business when he/she/it rents out a premise and is expected to manage the tenancy in accordance with its obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and all associated statues and regulations. This includes, but is not limited to, ensuring the premise is compliant with all its s45(1) of the RTA obligations for reletting purposes.
There is no provision in the RTA that provides a remedy for landlord any costs a landlord incurs as a result of choosing to use a property manager to co-ordinate contractors to get the premise ready to relet. A landlord is expected to have sufficient funds to cover the costs associated with co-ordinating contractors to get its premise ready to relet, if it does not want to undertake this itself.
The claim is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction to hear it.

OTHER CLAIMS

Reimbursement of filing fees

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 applicants] have substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Because the landlord has not wholly or substantially succeeded in its claims, I dismiss its application for reimbursement of 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 been substantially successful in their proceedings, and 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.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5367490 — Exemplary damages

Tenancy Tribunal case 5367490 — Exemplary damages

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

TENANTS CLAIMS

Should the fixed term tenancy be ended early?

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond within 23 working days?

LANDLORD CLAIMS

Are there rent arrears owing?

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

OTHER CLAIMS

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

TENANTS CLAIMS

Should the fixed term tenancy be ended early?

Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond within 23 working days?

LANDLORD CLAIMS

Are there rent arrears owing?

Did the tenants comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Are the tenants responsible for the damage to the premises?

OTHER CLAIMS