How much money was awarded in case 5371813?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5371813?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5371813?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13073203-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5371813?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5371813?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5371813?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13073203-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5371813 — 14-day notice

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5371813 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and the landlord’s name and

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and the landlord’s name and identifying details, including the tenancy address and any details relating to the tenant’s employment or the landlord’s business.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.
It is declared that the termination notice issued by the landlord on 14 November 2025 is valid and is not retaliatory. The last day of the tenancy will be 13 February 2026.

Reasons

[The tenant/s]

[The tenant/s] (tenant) and [The landlord’s representative/s], representing [The landlord/s], attended the hearing which was held by video. Prior to this hearing a case conference was held on 9 December 2025. Background
[The tenant/s] is employed by [The landlord/s], who operate [a business] at [Location], and has a service tenancy as a result of his employment. Previous to [The landlord/s] purchasing [the business] in 2017 [The tenant/s] was employed by the previous [business operator] from late July 2014. [The tenant/s] confirmed that he did not move into the tenancy premises or other accommodation leased from his employer immediately when he started working for the previous owner, but moved, around a year later in 2015.
The tenancy premises is a three bedroomed house and is part of a community of houses at [Location] owned by the local iwi who lease them to [The landlord/s] so that they can be lived in by workers at [The landlord/s]’s [business].
Neither [The tenant/s] nor [The landlord/s] could locate a copy of [The tenant/s]’s tenancy agreement.
On 26 September 2025 [The tenant/s] received a 90-day notice to terminate his tenancy. Under the notice [The tenant/s] was to vacate the premises on Christmas Day, being the 90 th day after the notice was served on him 1 .
The 90-day notice states “Alternative single accommodation will be arranged for you in the coming months. This relocation is necessary due to a combination of factors, including: • Operational requirements • The need to optimise available accommodation • Uncertainty regarding future lease arrangements for the village”
On 15 October 2025 [The tenant/s] received an invitation from [The landlord/s] to an individual consultation meeting. Following the meeting a second 90-day termination notice was served on [The tenant/s]. This notice was dated 14 November 2025 and recorded that the final date for vacating the premises was 13 February 2026. The second notice including the same information set out in the paragraph above. The tenant’s claims
[The tenant/s]’s application seeks an order from the Tribunal: a) setting aside the landlord’s 90-day notice to terminate his tenancy on the ground that the notice is retaliatory; b) exemplary damages in the event that the notice is retaliatory.
[The tenant/s] confirmed at the case conference hearing that he consented to the revocation or cancellation of the first notice and as a result considers the second notice is the termination notice to be considered. [The tenant/s] wants his application to set aside the landlord’s 90-day notice to terminate his tenancy to proceed under the second notice he received from [The landlord/s]. 1 Day 1 being the day after [The tenant/s] received the notice.
Both [The tenant/s] and [The landlord/s] agreed at the case conference that they wanted the Tribunal to determine [The tenant/s]’s claim as if his application was made within 28 working days of the second notice being received.
Section 85 RTA enables the Tribunal to: 1) exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants, and 2) determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case.
I have agreed to determine [The tenant/s]’s application as if the application was filed within the prescribed period of 28 working days of the second termination being received 2 . [The tenant/s] consented to the first notice being revoked before the end of the period of notice under the first termination notice 3 .
As both parties request the Tribunal to proceed as if the retaliatory notice application was filed after the second notice was given it seems to me a fair and expeditious resolution of the matter. The alternative is that [The tenant/s] has to file a second application relating to the same issue. From what both parties have said their submissions are the same; the only difference being that the second notice carries a later termination date. In considering the substantial merits and justices of considering this as an application filed within 28 days of the second termination notice, I am also led to the same conclusion. Accordingly [The tenant/s]’s claim will proceed as if he had filed his application within 28 working days of [The landlord/s] giving him the second termination notice.
In considering [The tenant/s]’s claim the following issues need to be determined: a) Is the tenancy a service tenancy? b) Can a 90-day notice be given to end a service tenancy? c) Is the 90-day notice valid? d) Is the notice retaliatory? Was the landlord wholly or partly by the tenant making a complaint or exercising their rights under the RTA or the tenancy agreement? e) If the notice is retaliatory, is the tenant entitled to exemplary damages?
[The tenant/s], as the applicant, is required to establish the claim, or put another way, must prove the claim. An applicant is required to establish their claim on the balance of probabilities. That means they must show that what they are claiming is more likely than not. Where an applicant does not provide sufficient evidence and reasoning to establish their claim on the balance of probability the claim needs to be dismissed. 2 See s 54(3) RTA 3 See s51(6) RTA

Is the tenancy a service tenancy?

Section 2(1) of the RTA defines a service tenancy as “a tenancy granted under a term of, or otherwise as an incident of service or a contract for services between the landlord as employer and the tenant as employee or contractor, whether or not a separate tenancy agreement is concluded in writing between the parties, and whether or not any rent is payable for the tenancy”.
Neither [The tenant/s] nor [The landlord/s] dispute that [The tenant/s] has a tenancy or that it is a service tenancy. They both accept [The tenant/s]’s tenancy was granted as a term of his employment. [The tenant/s] remembers signing a tenancy agreement with his previous employer. While a copy of [The tenant/s]’s tenancy agreement cannot be located, as set out in the definition of a service tenancy under the RTA, that does not have any effect on whether [The tenant/s] has a service tenancy.

Can a 90-day notice be given to end a service tenancy?

[The landlord/s] has issued its 90-day notice under section 51 of the RTA. Section 51(1) enables a landlord of a periodic tenancy to give a tenant 90 days’ notice to terminate a tenancy. A landlord does not have to provide a tenant any reason in doing so.
Section 53 RTA sets out specific provisions for either a landlord or a tenant to terminate a service tenancy by giving 14 days’ notice where the employment, or contract for services, is terminated or where the employee/tenant has been transferred to another location. If section 53 was the only provision that enables a landlord to terminate a service tenancy that would mean a tenant under a service tenancy would have the right to stay in the property they were renting at the start of their employment through to the end of their employment.
The question about whether section 53 is the sole provision for terminating service tenancies has been considered by the Tribunal and the District Court, on appeal from Tenancy Tribunal decisions in the past, and is now well settled.
The District Court has held that section 53 is not the sole and exclusive provision for terminating service tenancies. Judge Erber in Beal v Commissioner of Police 4 considered when a service tenancy could be terminated and the relationship between s 51 and s 53. He held that: In my judgment s53 applies (a) where the contract of service has been terminated; or (b) where the employee has been transferred. [...] This does not mean, in my judgment, that a service tenancy cannot be terminated except when employment 4 District Court, Christchurch, 30/5/2000 ceases or transfer takes place, because s 51 applies. This is a general provision and it applies to the termination of tenancies as a general proposition.”
Therefore in this case [The landlord/s] is able to terminate this tenancy by giving a 90-day notice without giving any reasons. That is, the landlord can terminate the tenancy of particular premises that has been leased to the tenant even though the tenant’s employment has not ended.
While [The landlord/s] has provided reasons for terminating [The tenant/s]’s tenancy, the current law enables [The landlord/s] to give a termination notice without any reason/s being provided to the tenant.
In making this finding I consider [The tenant/s]’s tenancy is a periodic tenancy and not a fixed term tenancy. A fixed term tenancy means a tenancy for a fixed term and does not include a tenancy which is terminable by notice 5 .
I say this as there is no evidence to support that the tenancy was provided for a fixed term of years or was fixed to [The tenant/s]’s employment term. While the tenancy agreement has not been provided, [The tenant/s]’s employment contract letter with his previous employer dated 23 July 2014 states that accommodation in a [Location] house is not guaranteed but is subject to availability 6 . Therefore I find there was no intention for accommodation to be for a fixed term.

Is the 90-day notice valid?

In considering whether a termination notice is retaliatory the notice must comply with the requirements of section 51. Section 51 (3) sets out the requirements of a notice to terminate a tenancy: (3) Every notice to terminate a tenancy shall— (a) be in writing; and (b) identify the premises to which it relates; and (c) specify the date by which the tenant is to vacate the premises; and (ca) if the landlord gives less than 90 days’ notice, set out the reasons for the termination; and (d) be signed by the party giving the notice, or by that party’s agent.
The second termination notice dated 14 November 2025 meets the requirements set out above and is a valid notice.

Is the notice retaliatory?

5 See section 2(1) RTA 6 When [The landlord/s] purchased the [business] the contract terms of employees were novated.

Section 54 RTA states that the Tribunal may declare a valid termination notice to be of no effect if the Tribunal is satisfied that it is retaliatory. A retaliatory notice is one where: In giving the notice the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred by this or any other Act or any complaint by the landlord relating to the tenancy.
[The tenant/s]’s written application records that he believes the termination notice was retaliatory as: a) the Māori landowners of the properties leased by [The landlord/s] declined to renew the landlord’s lease as the landlord had not met its maintenance obligations; b) the local hāpu opposed [The landlord/s]’s application to renew resource consents; c) he and others receiving a termination notice of their service tenancies, are union members and delegates.
I am not satisfied that these reasons for believing the notice was retaliatory are associated with [The tenant/s] exercising or proposing to exercise any rights he has as a tenant. Neither to do they amount to a complaint he has made to [The landlord/s] about the tenancy. The first two reasons set out above are matters well outside of the tenancy and are matters involving parties other than the tenant.
[The tenant/s] has raised that he believes the termination was given because he is a union member. However for the notice to be retaliatory the landlord has to be motivated to give the termination notice wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right or making a complaint. I am not convinced that the fact of being a member of the union amounts to exercising a right.
Regardless, I am convinced by the landlord’s evidence that its motivation for terminating [The tenant/s]’s tenancy is due to the large increase in workers it has employed and that it has a shortage of accommodation in the village. [The landlord’s representative/s] explained that [The landlord/s] is moving to a single quarters model of accommodation, where workers have a tenancy of a room in a house rather than tenancy premises comprising an entire house.
That is, I find [The landlord/s]’s motivation to terminate the tenancy is not due wholly or partly to [The tenant/s] exercising any right he has or making any complaint relating to the tenancy. Therefore I find the notice is not a retaliatory notice. Accordingly [The tenant/s]’s claim is dismissed.
As I stated at the hearing the issues [The tenant/s] is raising may be issues relating to his employment rather than tenancy issues and he is entitled to pursue those in another forum. Other Matters Suppression
This decision contains personal information relating to the employment of the tenant and information relating to the business of the landlord. The Tribunal on its own initiative orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties. In doing so I have had regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest and do not consider there is any public interest in having either the names of the parties published or any details that identify the location of the tenancy premises or the landlord’s business.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and the landlord’s name and identifying details, including the tenancy address and any details relating to the tenant’s employment or the landlord’s business.

The tenant’s application is dismissed.

It is declared that the termination notice issued by the landlord on 14 November 2025 is valid and is not retaliatory. The last day of the tenancy will be 13 February 2026.

Reasons

[The tenant/s]

[The tenant/s] (tenant) and [The landlord’s representative/s], representing [The landlord/s], attended the hearing which was held by video. Prior to this hearing a case conference was held on 9 December 2025. Background

[The tenant/s] is employed by [The landlord/s], who operate [a business] at [Location], and has a service tenancy as a result of his employment. Previous to [The landlord/s] purchasing [the business] in 2017 [The tenant/s] was employed by the previous [business operator] from late July 2014. [The tenant/s] confirmed that he did not move into the tenancy premises or other accommodation leased from his employer immediately when he started working for the previous owner, but moved, around a year later in 2015.

The tenancy premises is a three bedroomed house and is part of a community of houses at [Location] owned by the local iwi who lease them to [The landlord/s] so that they can be lived in by workers at [The landlord/s]’s [business].

Neither [The tenant/s] nor [The landlord/s] could locate a copy of [The tenant/s]’s tenancy agreement.

On 26 September 2025 [The tenant/s] received a 90-day notice to terminate his tenancy. Under the notice [The tenant/s] was to vacate the premises on Christmas Day, being the 90 th day after the notice was served on him 1 .

The 90-day notice states “Alternative single accommodation will be arranged for you in the coming months. This relocation is necessary due to a combination of factors, including: • Operational requirements • The need to optimise available accommodation • Uncertainty regarding future lease arrangements for the village”

On 15 October 2025 [The tenant/s] received an invitation from [The landlord/s] to an individual consultation meeting. Following the meeting a second 90-day termination notice was served on [The tenant/s]. This notice was dated 14 November 2025 and recorded that the final date for vacating the premises was 13 February 2026. The second notice including the same information set out in the paragraph above. The tenant’s claims

[The tenant/s]’s application seeks an order from the Tribunal: a) setting aside the landlord’s 90-day notice to terminate his tenancy on the ground that the notice is retaliatory; b) exemplary damages in the event that the notice is retaliatory.

[The tenant/s] confirmed at the case conference hearing that he consented to the revocation or cancellation of the first notice and as a result considers the second notice is the termination notice to be considered. [The tenant/s] wants his application to set aside the landlord’s 90-day notice to terminate his tenancy to proceed under the second notice he received from [The landlord/s]. 1 Day 1 being the day after [The tenant/s] received the notice.

Both [The tenant/s] and [The landlord/s] agreed at the case conference that they wanted the Tribunal to determine [The tenant/s]’s claim as if his application was made within 28 working days of the second notice being received.

Section 85 RTA enables the Tribunal to: 1) exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants, and 2) determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case.

I have agreed to determine [The tenant/s]’s application as if the application was filed within the prescribed period of 28 working days of the second termination being received 2 . [The tenant/s] consented to the first notice being revoked before the end of the period of notice under the first termination notice 3 .

As both parties request the Tribunal to proceed as if the retaliatory notice application was filed after the second notice was given it seems to me a fair and expeditious resolution of the matter. The alternative is that [The tenant/s] has to file a second application relating to the same issue. From what both parties have said their submissions are the same; the only difference being that the second notice carries a later termination date. In considering the substantial merits and justices of considering this as an application filed within 28 days of the second termination notice, I am also led to the same conclusion. Accordingly [The tenant/s]’s claim will proceed as if he had filed his application within 28 working days of [The landlord/s] giving him the second termination notice.

In considering [The tenant/s]’s claim the following issues need to be determined: a) Is the tenancy a service tenancy? b) Can a 90-day notice be given to end a service tenancy? c) Is the 90-day notice valid? d) Is the notice retaliatory? Was the landlord wholly or partly by the tenant making a complaint or exercising their rights under the RTA or the tenancy agreement? e) If the notice is retaliatory, is the tenant entitled to exemplary damages?

[The tenant/s], as the applicant, is required to establish the claim, or put another way, must prove the claim. An applicant is required to establish their claim on the balance of probabilities. That means they must show that what they are claiming is more likely than not. Where an applicant does not provide sufficient evidence and reasoning to establish their claim on the balance of probability the claim needs to be dismissed. 2 See s 54(3) RTA 3 See s51(6) RTA

Is the tenancy a service tenancy?

Section 2(1) of the RTA defines a service tenancy as “a tenancy granted under a term of, or otherwise as an incident of service or a contract for services between the landlord as employer and the tenant as employee or contractor, whether or not a separate tenancy agreement is concluded in writing between the parties, and whether or not any rent is payable for the tenancy”.

Neither [The tenant/s] nor [The landlord/s] dispute that [The tenant/s] has a tenancy or that it is a service tenancy. They both accept [The tenant/s]’s tenancy was granted as a term of his employment. [The tenant/s] remembers signing a tenancy agreement with his previous employer. While a copy of [The tenant/s]’s tenancy agreement cannot be located, as set out in the definition of a service tenancy under the RTA, that does not have any effect on whether [The tenant/s] has a service tenancy.

Can a 90-day notice be given to end a service tenancy?

[The landlord/s] has issued its 90-day notice under section 51 of the RTA. Section 51(1) enables a landlord of a periodic tenancy to give a tenant 90 days’ notice to terminate a tenancy. A landlord does not have to provide a tenant any reason in doing so.

Section 53 RTA sets out specific provisions for either a landlord or a tenant to terminate a service tenancy by giving 14 days’ notice where the employment, or contract for services, is terminated or where the employee/tenant has been transferred to another location. If section 53 was the only provision that enables a landlord to terminate a service tenancy that would mean a tenant under a service tenancy would have the right to stay in the property they were renting at the start of their employment through to the end of their employment.

The question about whether section 53 is the sole provision for terminating service tenancies has been considered by the Tribunal and the District Court, on appeal from Tenancy Tribunal decisions in the past, and is now well settled.

The District Court has held that section 53 is not the sole and exclusive provision for terminating service tenancies. Judge Erber in Beal v Commissioner of Police 4 considered when a service tenancy could be terminated and the relationship between s 51 and s 53. He held that: In my judgment s53 applies (a) where the contract of service has been terminated; or (b) where the employee has been transferred. [...] This does not mean, in my judgment, that a service tenancy cannot be terminated except when employment 4 District Court, Christchurch, 30/5/2000 ceases or transfer takes place, because s 51 applies. This is a general provision and it applies to the termination of tenancies as a general proposition.”

Therefore in this case [The landlord/s] is able to terminate this tenancy by giving a 90-day notice without giving any reasons. That is, the landlord can terminate the tenancy of particular premises that has been leased to the tenant even though the tenant’s employment has not ended.

While [The landlord/s] has provided reasons for terminating [The tenant/s]’s tenancy, the current law enables [The landlord/s] to give a termination notice without any reason/s being provided to the tenant.

In making this finding I consider [The tenant/s]’s tenancy is a periodic tenancy and not a fixed term tenancy. A fixed term tenancy means a tenancy for a fixed term and does not include a tenancy which is terminable by notice 5 .

I say this as there is no evidence to support that the tenancy was provided for a fixed term of years or was fixed to [The tenant/s]’s employment term. While the tenancy agreement has not been provided, [The tenant/s]’s employment contract letter with his previous employer dated 23 July 2014 states that accommodation in a [Location] house is not guaranteed but is subject to availability 6 . Therefore I find there was no intention for accommodation to be for a fixed term.

Is the 90-day notice valid?

In considering whether a termination notice is retaliatory the notice must comply with the requirements of section 51. Section 51 (3) sets out the requirements of a notice to terminate a tenancy: (3) Every notice to terminate a tenancy shall— (a) be in writing; and (b) identify the premises to which it relates; and (c) specify the date by which the tenant is to vacate the premises; and (ca) if the landlord gives less than 90 days’ notice, set out the reasons for the termination; and (d) be signed by the party giving the notice, or by that party’s agent.

The second termination notice dated 14 November 2025 meets the requirements set out above and is a valid notice.

Is the notice retaliatory?

5 See section 2(1) RTA 6 When [The landlord/s] purchased the [business] the contract terms of employees were novated.

Section 54 RTA states that the Tribunal may declare a valid termination notice to be of no effect if the Tribunal is satisfied that it is retaliatory. A retaliatory notice is one where: In giving the notice the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred by this or any other Act or any complaint by the landlord relating to the tenancy.

[The tenant/s]’s written application records that he believes the termination notice was retaliatory as: a) the Māori landowners of the properties leased by [The landlord/s] declined to renew the landlord’s lease as the landlord had not met its maintenance obligations; b) the local hāpu opposed [The landlord/s]’s application to renew resource consents; c) he and others receiving a termination notice of their service tenancies, are union members and delegates.

I am not satisfied that these reasons for believing the notice was retaliatory are associated with [The tenant/s] exercising or proposing to exercise any rights he has as a tenant. Neither to do they amount to a complaint he has made to [The landlord/s] about the tenancy. The first two reasons set out above are matters well outside of the tenancy and are matters involving parties other than the tenant.

[The tenant/s] has raised that he believes the termination was given because he is a union member. However for the notice to be retaliatory the landlord has to be motivated to give the termination notice wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right or making a complaint. I am not convinced that the fact of being a member of the union amounts to exercising a right.

Regardless, I am convinced by the landlord’s evidence that its motivation for terminating [The tenant/s]’s tenancy is due to the large increase in workers it has employed and that it has a shortage of accommodation in the village. [The landlord’s representative/s] explained that [The landlord/s] is moving to a single quarters model of accommodation, where workers have a tenancy of a room in a house rather than tenancy premises comprising an entire house.

That is, I find [The landlord/s]’s motivation to terminate the tenancy is not due wholly or partly to [The tenant/s] exercising any right he has or making any complaint relating to the tenancy. Therefore I find the notice is not a retaliatory notice. Accordingly [The tenant/s]’s claim is dismissed.

As I stated at the hearing the issues [The tenant/s] is raising may be issues relating to his employment rather than tenancy issues and he is entitled to pursue those in another forum. Other Matters Suppression

This decision contains personal information relating to the employment of the tenant and information relating to the business of the landlord. The Tribunal on its own initiative orders suppression of the names and identifying details of both parties. In doing so I have had regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest and do not consider there is any public interest in having either the names of the parties published or any details that identify the location of the tenancy premises or the landlord’s business.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5371813 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5371813 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the tenancy a service tenancy?

Can a 90-day notice be given to end a service tenancy?

Is the 90-day notice valid?

Is the notice retaliatory?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Is the tenancy a service tenancy?

Can a 90-day notice be given to end a service tenancy?

Is the 90-day notice valid?

Is the notice retaliatory?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions