Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5368510 — Exemplary damages at 20 Richard Avenue, Bucklands Beach, Auckland 2014
Published 2 June 2026 · Application 5368510
- Exemplary damages
- Cleanliness
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
N Walker
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $8,705.88
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $8,705.88
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Paint | $1,090.42 | Paint | |
| Building materials | $5,315.46 | Building materials | |
| Cleaning | $500.00 | Cleaning | |
| Exemplary damages - unlawful purpose | $1,800.00 | Exemplary damages - unlawful purpose | |
| Net award | $8,705.88 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $8,705.88 |
Claims and awards for application 5368510 — net $8,705.88 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Paint
- Amount
- $1,090.42
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Paint
Building materials
- Amount
- $5,315.46
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Building materials
Cleaning
- Amount
- $500.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Cleaning
Exemplary damages - unlawful purpose
- Amount
- $1,800.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Exemplary damages - unlawful purpose
Net award
Landlord $8,705.88
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $8,705.88
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Ruilian Zhang must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited Highland Park $8,705.88 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
Reasons
- The landlord attended the hearing held on 2 June 2026. The tenant did not attend the hearing.
- A hearing was held on 24 February 2026 where rent arrears were awarded, and the bond was released to the landlord. That hearing was adjourned for the landlord to produce further evidence in relation to his claim for compensation and exemplary damages.
- The landlord claims compensation due to damage caused by the tenant in setting up a hydroponic cannabis growing operation at the premises. He also claims exemplary damages for the tenant using the premises for unlawful purposes.
- The landlord produced photographs taken by the Police following the execution of a search warrant. Those photographs show significant alterations and growing apparatus in the premises. The Police also provided a record of the outcome of the search warrant which states, “Full cannabis grow house discovered with 7 rooms and a cupboard turned into a sophisticated cannabis cultivation grow. 110 large budded plants and 111 seedlings seized for destruction...Illegal power bypass identified by electrician...”
- The landlord produced a document from his insurance company confirming that his insurance policy did not cover the damage caused by the tenants.
- The landlord employed an electrician, a plumber and a builder to carry out repairs at the premises. Unfortunately, the landlord did not obtain or produce invoices from these contractors. It is not possible for the Tribunal to award compensation in the absence of invoices.
- The landlord had provided many invoices for the purchase of materials to carry out the repairs. Some of the invoices are for kitchen and bathroom repairs which the photographs do not indicate were due to the damage caused by the tenants.
- The landlord said that the damage consisted of large holes in the floors of all bedrooms and the ceiling of one bedroom.
- I have awarded for paint and wood purchased to carry out these repairs. In addition, I have awarded for cleaning carried out by the owner as supported by the photographs. Exemplary damages
- Barfoot & Thompson Limited Highland Park claims the tenant has used the premises unlawfully, by growing cannabis inside the premises.
- A tenant must not use the premises or permit the premises to be used for an unlawful purpose. See section 40(2)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,800.00. See section 40(3A)(c) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- It is unlawful to cultivate prohibited plants 1 and cannabis is a prohibited plant 2 . 1 Section 9 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975
- The tenant either cultivated cannabis or allowed other people to cultivate cannabis in the premises. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
- 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.
- Given the extent of the unlawful activity I find it is warranted to award the maximum amount allowed for this unlawful act. The maximum exemplary damages are only awarded in the most serious cases, where the Tribunal is satisfied that the conduct was intentional, harmful and a strong deterrent message is needed.
- In this situation the conduct was deliberate and caused significant harm for the landlord.
- While the landlord has been successful with this part of the landlord’s claim, the filing fee had been reimbursed in the order made on 24 February 2026.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s1, s10, s109(3), s2, s40(2), s40(3A), s9
Key findings
- Dispute theme: cleaning
- Dispute theme: exemplary damages
Property management
- BARFOOT & THOMPSON LIMITED Highland Park (applicant)
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5368510?
The tribunal order states: Ruilian Zhang must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited Highland Park $8,705.88
How much money was awarded in case 5368510?
Building Materials: $5,315.46 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,800.00 awarded to landlord; Paint: $1,090.42 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5368510?
The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Cleanliness.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5368510?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13683660-Tribunal_Order.pdf.