Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5368761 — Tenancy dispute
Decided 19 Feb 2026 · Published 19 Feb 2026 · Application 5368761
Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Adjudicator
G Barnett
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.
Order
- The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and identifying details.
- The application is dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties appeared. The tenant was assisted by [The tenant’s support person].
- On 13 October 2025, the landlord gave the tenant 90 days’ notice ending the tenancy on 11 January 2026. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory. Evidence
- The tenancy commenced on 17 July 2023. On 13 December 2025, the tenant filed a claim with the Tribunal. There were in-person hearings on 10 June 2025 and 23 July 2025. The Tribunal’s decision was released on 23 September 2025. A monetary award was made in favour of the tenant, which was then offset against electricity charges owed to the landlord, leaving a balance payable to the tenant.
- On 9 October 2025, the landlord asked the tenant to confirm their bank details. On 13 October 2025, the landlord served a 90-day, no-cause notice terminating the tenancy on 11 January 2026. On the same day, the landlord sent the tenant an email stating that the owners of the property intended to use the property to house farm workers, but had given 90 days’ notice rather than the required 42 days’ notice.
- The tenant states that on 25 November 2025, the owner and their wife visited the property, and that during the visit, the owner stated that their son was returning to New Zealand from overseas. The tenant believes that the property will be occupied by the landlord’s son. On 12 December 2025, the owner sent an email to the tenant and the Tribunal stating that the property was required for farming operations.
- The tenant claims that the notice is retaliatory because it was issued twenty-one days after the Tribunal decision, on the same date the landlord sought to confirm bank account details for payment. The tenant also notes that shortly afterward, the landlord stated that the owner intended to use the property for workers, which contradicted the actual notice. Additionally, the owner had, during their visit, given the impression that their son was going to be residing in the property, a further contradiction that, in the tenant’s view, casts doubt on the grounds on which the notice was issued.
- The landlord denies that the notice was wholly or partly motivated by the tenant exercising their rights. The landlord stated that the notice was issued because the owner ([The owner]) planned to use the property to house a farm worker, and that the worker was his son. The landlord explained that they had issued a 90- day no-cause notice but had also pointed out to the tenant that they would have been entitled to give a shorter 42-day notice period, but chose not to, acknowledging that one of the tenants was disabled and had special needs.
- [The owner] took the promise to tell the truth, acknowledging that he may be prosecuted for giving false evidence. He stated that his son was the farm worker referred to, and that his son and partner were returning to New Zealand from overseas in the first two weeks of January 2026 and planned to move into the property. Law
- Under section 51(1)(a) of the Act, the landlord may give a 90 day notice to terminate a periodic tenancy. No reason is required. Section 51(2) provides that the landlord may give 42 days’ notice if the owner requires the property as the principal place of residence for themselves or a member of their family, or they customarily use the premises for occupation by employees and the fact is clearly stated in the tenancy agreement.
- Section 136 of the Act provides that notices sent to an email address for service before 5pm are deemed to have been served on that day.
- For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove more likely than not that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (Act).
- In the case of Kerr v Woodman DC Porirua MA 244/88, 03 November 1988, the Court held that a notice of termination given for genuine and fair reasons will not be considered retaliatory. Decision
- I accept the owner’s evidence that their son and his partner will return to reside at the property in January 2026 and work on the owner’s farm. This is a genuine reason for seeking to terminate the tenancy. Although the notice was issued shortly after the conclusion of the Tribunal proceedings, I am not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising their rights. The notice is valid in form and has been served correctly. The application to declare the notice retaliatory is dismissed.
- The tenant states that, for personal reasons, they are unable to vacate the property at the end of the tenancy and seek more time. The landlord is unwilling to accommodate the tenant.
- Section 85 of the Act gives the Tribunal the power to act in a manner that is fair and expeditious and to avoid technicalities. However, this discretion does not allow the Tribunal to override clear statutory requirements or to grant relief that is inconsistent with the Act.
- While I have sympathy for the tenant’s position, the Tribunal does not have a general discretion to extend the tenancy or allow the tenant to remain in the premises beyond the termination date simply because the tenant has personal reasons. Name suppression
- Both parties seek name suppression.
- The parties have both previously been given name suppression in matters arising from this tenancy and there are no reasons why that should not continue.