What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5368381 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $3,028.00 immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 5368381?

Compensation: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5368381?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5368381?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13078846-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5368381 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $3,028.00 immediately.

How much money was awarded in case 5368381?

Compensation: $2,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5368381?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5368381?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13078846-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 1, 7 Tudor Crescent, Chedworth, Hamilton Tenancy Tribunal Case 5368381 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5368381 — net $3,028.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation (unlawful termination	$2,000.00	Compensation (unlawful termination
Exemplary damages	$1,000.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,028.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,028.00

Order

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $3,028.00 immediately. DescriptionTenant Compensation (unlawful termination) Exemplary damages $2,000.00 $1,000.00 Filing fee reimbursement $28.00 Total award $3,028.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $3,028.00

Reasons

The hearing was conducted via videoconference.
The tenants are Mr [The tenant/s], Ms [The tenant/s], Ms [The tenant/s] and Ms [The tenant/s]. They attended the hearing. Mr Platt addressed me on behalf of all tenants.
Mr Frank Chen, the property manager, appeared and addressed me on behalf of the landlord. Mr [The landlord/s], the landlord, attended the hearing as a support person only and did not participate.
The application concerns whether the landlord lawfully issued a termination notice under section 51(2)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”), and whether compensation and exemplary damages should be awarded.
Both parties sought leave at the hearing to file further evidence after the hearing. I declined both requests. The Notice of Hearing clearly states: “Last date for filing information: No later than 72 hours before the hearing date.”
That requirement applies equally to both parties and is fundamental to procedural fairness. Background and timeline
Having considered the oral evidence, documents, and submissions properly before me, I find the following facts on the balance of probabilities: a. On 27 March 2025, the landlord issued a 42-day termination notice relying on section 51(2)(a) of the Act, stating that the premises were required as the principal place of residence for the landlord or a member of the landlord’s family. b. The termination date specified in the notice was 8 May 2025. c. The tenants vacated the premises on 7 May 2025, in compliance with the notice. d. The landlord arrived in New Zealand from China on 9 May 2025. e. On arrival, the landlord did not take possession of the premises. Instead, he stayed at another property he owned. f. The tenants removed their furniture when vacating the premises. As a result, the tenancy premises were empty and unfurnished. g. The property was listed for short-term accommodation through Booking.com as an Airbnb on or about 16 May 2025. h. The first short-term guest stayed at the property on 18 May 2025, with a public review left on 19 May 2025. i. The landlord returned to China on 18 May 2025 and has remained there. He has never occupied the premises as his principal place of residence. j. At the time of the hearing, the property continued to be used for short-term accommodation. Submissions of the tenants
The tenants submitted that the termination notice issued on 27 March 2025 was unlawful and given in bad faith. They said the notice relied on section 51(2)(a) of the Act, asserting that the premises were required as the principal place of residence for the landlord or a member of his family. The tenants submitted that this was not the true reason for termination and that the landlord never intended to occupy the premises.
Mr Platt, speaking on behalf of all tenants, explained that prior to the termination notice the tenants had been informed that the property was to be sold. This caused them concern that the stated reason for termination might not be genuine. After vacating the premises on 7 May 2025, the tenants undertook their own inquiries and discovered that the property had been listed for short- term accommodation on Airbnb and Booking.com shortly after they vacated.
The tenants relied on public online reviews showing that a guest stayed at the premises on or about 18 May 2025, with the first review being posted on 19 May 2025. They submitted that the rapid conversion of the property into a short- term rental, including furnishing, photographing, and listing the property, was inconsistent with the landlord’s claim that the property was required for residential occupation by the landlord or his family.
The tenants submitted that the landlord was prohibited from issuing the notice under section 60AA of the Act because he knew that he was not entitled to give it. They said that the landlord’s conduct caused them significant stress and inconvenience, including the need to secure alternative accommodation and relocate. They sought compensation for unlawful termination and exemplary damages, submitting that the landlord’s conduct warranted a penalty to deter similar behaviour. Submissions of the landlord
The landlord, through his property manager Mr Chen, accepted that the property was subsequently used for short-term accommodation. Mr Chen submitted that the landlord initially intended to move into the premises but that those plans changed unexpectedly due to a family medical emergency overseas. He said the landlord and his partner travelled to New Zealand intending to relocate, but shortly after arrival were informed that the landlord’s father-in-law was seriously unwell, requiring them to return to China.
Mr Chen submitted that because of this sudden change in circumstances, the landlord decided not to proceed with occupying the premises and instead instructed him to list the property for short-term rental. He said this decision was made after the landlord returned to China and was not the original intention at the time the termination notice was issued.
The landlord acknowledged that the tenants were affected by having to move, but submitted that 42 days’ notice had been given and that the level of stress and inconvenience claimed by the tenants was overstated. Mr Chen submitted that the amount of compensation sought by the tenants was excessive. While the landlord did not dispute that some compensation was appropriate, he asked that any award be modest. The law
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 60AA.
Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Analysis
The issue I must determine is whether the landlord was entitled to issue a termination notice under section 51(2)(a) of the Act, and if not, whether the notice was given in breach of section 60AA.
Section 51(2)(a) permits a landlord to terminate a tenancy where the premises is required as the principal place of residence of the landlord or a member of the landlord’s family. This ground is narrowly framed and requires a bona fide intention that the premises will in fact be occupied as a principal residence. Section 60AA provides that a landlord must not give a termination notice if the landlord knows that they are not entitled to give it.
In this case, the evidence establishes that the landlord never occupied the premises at any point after the tenants vacated. Although the landlord arrived in New Zealand shortly after the termination date, he did not take possession of the premises and instead stayed at another property that he owned. That property was, in practical terms, his principal place of residence while he was in New Zealand.
I find it significant that the tenancy premises were left empty and unfurnished by the tenants, yet were quickly furnished and prepared for short-term commercial use (Airbnb). The property was listed for short-term accommodation within days, and a paying guest occupied the premises within approximately 11 days of the tenants vacating. In my view, this required deliberate and organised action. It is inconsistent with an intention to use the property as a personal residence.
While I accept that the landlord experienced a family medical issue and returned to China for personal reasons, that does not explain why the premises were never occupied even briefly as a residence, nor why they were instead used for short-term rental accommodation almost immediately. The explanation given does not reconcile with the objective facts and the timing of events.
I am satisfied that at the time the termination notice was issued, the landlord knew that the premises would not be used as his principal place of residence as required by section 51(2)(a). The landlord had another residence available to him, did not move into the premises when the opportunity arose, and instead used the property for commercial gain.
I therefore find that the landlord gave the termination notice knowing that he was not entitled to do so, in breach of section 60AA of the Act. The termination was unlawful.
In relation to compensation, I accept that the tenants experienced stress and inconvenience as a direct result of the unlawful termination. They were required to vacate their home, organise alternative accommodation, and relocate under false pretences. Taking these factors into account, I consider general compensation of $2,000 to be appropriate.
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 also consider exemplary damages to be justified. The landlord’s conduct involved the misuse of a statutory termination ground and resulted in the displacement of multiple tenants for the purpose of converting the property to short-term accommodation. Exemplary damages are necessary to mark the seriousness of the breach and to deter similar conduct by this landlord and others. I assess exemplary damages in the sum of $1,000.
I would have considered a higher award of exemplary damages had it not been for the fact that the landlord, through Mr Chen, accepted that his decision caused stress and inconvenience to the tenants. Filing fee
Because [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5368381 — net $3,028.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Compensation (unlawful termination	$2,000.00	Compensation (unlawful termination
Exemplary damages	$1,000.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$3,028.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$3,028.00

Order

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] and [The tenant/s] $3,028.00 immediately. DescriptionTenant Compensation (unlawful termination) Exemplary damages $2,000.00 $1,000.00 Filing fee reimbursement $28.00 Total award $3,028.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $3,028.00

Reasons

The hearing was conducted via videoconference.
The tenants are Mr [The tenant/s], Ms [The tenant/s], Ms [The tenant/s] and Ms [The tenant/s]. They attended the hearing. Mr Platt addressed me on behalf of all tenants.
Mr Frank Chen, the property manager, appeared and addressed me on behalf of the landlord. Mr [The landlord/s], the landlord, attended the hearing as a support person only and did not participate.
The application concerns whether the landlord lawfully issued a termination notice under section 51(2)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”), and whether compensation and exemplary damages should be awarded.
Both parties sought leave at the hearing to file further evidence after the hearing. I declined both requests. The Notice of Hearing clearly states: “Last date for filing information: No later than 72 hours before the hearing date.”
That requirement applies equally to both parties and is fundamental to procedural fairness. Background and timeline
Having considered the oral evidence, documents, and submissions properly before me, I find the following facts on the balance of probabilities: a. On 27 March 2025, the landlord issued a 42-day termination notice relying on section 51(2)(a) of the Act, stating that the premises were required as the principal place of residence for the landlord or a member of the landlord’s family. b. The termination date specified in the notice was 8 May 2025. c. The tenants vacated the premises on 7 May 2025, in compliance with the notice. d. The landlord arrived in New Zealand from China on 9 May 2025. e. On arrival, the landlord did not take possession of the premises. Instead, he stayed at another property he owned. f. The tenants removed their furniture when vacating the premises. As a result, the tenancy premises were empty and unfurnished. g. The property was listed for short-term accommodation through Booking.com as an Airbnb on or about 16 May 2025. h. The first short-term guest stayed at the property on 18 May 2025, with a public review left on 19 May 2025. i. The landlord returned to China on 18 May 2025 and has remained there. He has never occupied the premises as his principal place of residence. j. At the time of the hearing, the property continued to be used for short-term accommodation. Submissions of the tenants
The tenants submitted that the termination notice issued on 27 March 2025 was unlawful and given in bad faith. They said the notice relied on section 51(2)(a) of the Act, asserting that the premises were required as the principal place of residence for the landlord or a member of his family. The tenants submitted that this was not the true reason for termination and that the landlord never intended to occupy the premises.
Mr Platt, speaking on behalf of all tenants, explained that prior to the termination notice the tenants had been informed that the property was to be sold. This caused them concern that the stated reason for termination might not be genuine. After vacating the premises on 7 May 2025, the tenants undertook their own inquiries and discovered that the property had been listed for short- term accommodation on Airbnb and Booking.com shortly after they vacated.
The tenants relied on public online reviews showing that a guest stayed at the premises on or about 18 May 2025, with the first review being posted on 19 May 2025. They submitted that the rapid conversion of the property into a short- term rental, including furnishing, photographing, and listing the property, was inconsistent with the landlord’s claim that the property was required for residential occupation by the landlord or his family.
The tenants submitted that the landlord was prohibited from issuing the notice under section 60AA of the Act because he knew that he was not entitled to give it. They said that the landlord’s conduct caused them significant stress and inconvenience, including the need to secure alternative accommodation and relocate. They sought compensation for unlawful termination and exemplary damages, submitting that the landlord’s conduct warranted a penalty to deter similar behaviour. Submissions of the landlord
The landlord, through his property manager Mr Chen, accepted that the property was subsequently used for short-term accommodation. Mr Chen submitted that the landlord initially intended to move into the premises but that those plans changed unexpectedly due to a family medical emergency overseas. He said the landlord and his partner travelled to New Zealand intending to relocate, but shortly after arrival were informed that the landlord’s father-in-law was seriously unwell, requiring them to return to China.
Mr Chen submitted that because of this sudden change in circumstances, the landlord decided not to proceed with occupying the premises and instead instructed him to list the property for short-term rental. He said this decision was made after the landlord returned to China and was not the original intention at the time the termination notice was issued.
The landlord acknowledged that the tenants were affected by having to move, but submitted that 42 days’ notice had been given and that the level of stress and inconvenience claimed by the tenants was overstated. Mr Chen submitted that the amount of compensation sought by the tenants was excessive. While the landlord did not dispute that some compensation was appropriate, he asked that any award be modest. The law
The tenants claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 60AA.
Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Analysis
The issue I must determine is whether the landlord was entitled to issue a termination notice under section 51(2)(a) of the Act, and if not, whether the notice was given in breach of section 60AA.
Section 51(2)(a) permits a landlord to terminate a tenancy where the premises is required as the principal place of residence of the landlord or a member of the landlord’s family. This ground is narrowly framed and requires a bona fide intention that the premises will in fact be occupied as a principal residence. Section 60AA provides that a landlord must not give a termination notice if the landlord knows that they are not entitled to give it.
In this case, the evidence establishes that the landlord never occupied the premises at any point after the tenants vacated. Although the landlord arrived in New Zealand shortly after the termination date, he did not take possession of the premises and instead stayed at another property that he owned. That property was, in practical terms, his principal place of residence while he was in New Zealand.
I find it significant that the tenancy premises were left empty and unfurnished by the tenants, yet were quickly furnished and prepared for short-term commercial use (Airbnb). The property was listed for short-term accommodation within days, and a paying guest occupied the premises within approximately 11 days of the tenants vacating. In my view, this required deliberate and organised action. It is inconsistent with an intention to use the property as a personal residence.
While I accept that the landlord experienced a family medical issue and returned to China for personal reasons, that does not explain why the premises were never occupied even briefly as a residence, nor why they were instead used for short-term rental accommodation almost immediately. The explanation given does not reconcile with the objective facts and the timing of events.
I am satisfied that at the time the termination notice was issued, the landlord knew that the premises would not be used as his principal place of residence as required by section 51(2)(a). The landlord had another residence available to him, did not move into the premises when the opportunity arose, and instead used the property for commercial gain.
I therefore find that the landlord gave the termination notice knowing that he was not entitled to do so, in breach of section 60AA of the Act. The termination was unlawful.
In relation to compensation, I accept that the tenants experienced stress and inconvenience as a direct result of the unlawful termination. They were required to vacate their home, organise alternative accommodation, and relocate under false pretences. Taking these factors into account, I consider general compensation of $2,000 to be appropriate.
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 also consider exemplary damages to be justified. The landlord’s conduct involved the misuse of a statutory termination ground and resulted in the displacement of multiple tenants for the purpose of converting the property to short-term accommodation. Exemplary damages are necessary to mark the seriousness of the breach and to deter similar conduct by this landlord and others. I assess exemplary damages in the sum of $1,000.
I would have considered a higher award of exemplary damages had it not been for the fact that the landlord, through Mr Chen, accepted that his decision caused stress and inconvenience to the tenants. Filing fee
Because [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s], [The tenant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5368381 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat Unit 1, 7 Tudor Crescent, Chedworth, Hamilton

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5368381 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat Unit 1, 7 Tudor Crescent, Chedworth, Hamilton

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions