How much money was awarded in case 5371833?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5371833?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5371833?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13074693-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5371833?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5371833?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5371833?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13074693-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5371833 — 14-day notice

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5371833 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.
It is declared that the termination notice issued by the landlord on 14 November 2025 is not valid and is of no effect. The tenancy will not end on 13 February 2026.

Reasons

[The tenant/s] attended the hearing by telephone. He was supported by [The tenant’s support person/s]. [The landlord’s representative/s] attended by video representing [The landlord/s].
A case conference for this matter was heard 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. He has lived in tenancy premises for around 35 years, as before [The landlord/s] purchased the [business] in 2017 he was employed by the previous [business operator]. [The tenant/s]’s employment at the [business] was not continuous. He worked in Australia for around 4 years from around 2011 to 2105, during which time [The tenant/s]’s wife took over the tenancy. On 27 July 2017 he entered into a tenancy agreement of the premises as the sole tenant.
The tenancy premises is a four bedroomed house and is part of a community of houses in [Location] owned by the local iwi who lease them to [The landlord/s] for use by its employees.
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.
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 he 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 tenant’s claims
[The tenant/s] 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) for 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].
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 it was filed within the prescribed period of 28 working days of the second termination being received 1 . [The tenant/s] consented to the first notice being revoked before the end of the period of notice under the first termination notice. 2
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] would have to file a second application relating to the same issue. 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 to 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 to the balance of probability the claim needs to be dismissed.

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”. 1 See s 54(3) RTA 2 See s 51(6) RTA
Neither [The tenant/s] nor [The landlord/s] dispute that this is a service tenancy. They both accept [The tenant/s]’s tenancy was granted as a term of his employment. The fact that it is a service tenancy is stated in [The tenant/s]’s tenancy agreement.

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

[The tenant/s]’s belief is that “the house comes with the job, and he would be able to leave at the premises until he decided to retire or deceased. He has raised that the tenancy agreement is part of his employment and as his employment has not ended he does not see how [The landlord/s] can end his tenancy.
Here, [The tenant/s]’s tenancy is periodic is set out in his tenancy agreement.
[The landlord/s] has issued its 90-day notice under section 51 of the RTA. That provision enables a landlord of a periodic tenancy to give a tenant 90 days’ notice to terminate a tenancy without having to provide 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 is the only provision that enables a landlord to terminate a service tenancy then that would mean a tenant under a service tenancy would have the right to stay in the property they were tenanted 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 3 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 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 3 District Court, Christchurch, 30/5/2000 the tenancy of particular premises that has been leased to the tenant even though the tenant’s employment has not ended.
I also note that a) [The tenant/s]’s employment terms 4 records under the heading “Housing ([Location])” that accommodation is not guaranteed in a [Location] house., and b) [The tenant/s]’s tenancy agreement sets out that he “may be required to move to alterative accommodation on [The landlord/s]’s request. If this is required, [The landlord/s] will endeavour to provide the tenant with 30 days written notice 5 ”.
For the above reasons I am not satisfied that the particular house [The tenant/s] leases comes with the job as he has submitted or that he is able to stay there until his employment with [The landlord/s] ends or he dies. As stated above [The landlord/s] are able to give him a 90 day notice to end the tenancy.

Is the 90 day notice valid?

Section 54 sets out when the Tribunal can declare a termination notice is retaliatory. Section 54(1) requires that 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 all of the requirements set out in s 51(3).
[The tenant/s] raised that the second notice was served on him by [The landlord/s] attaching it to an email which was sent to his wife’s email address. He said he had not given [The landlord/s] his wife’s email address. He was not sure where the got the email address from. He said his wife did not check her emails often or on a regular basis and that he did not access her email address. [The 4 As set out in the letter dated 29 April 2015 with the previous owner of the [business]. The employment contract terms were novated, when the business was sold to [The landlord/s]. 5 Even though the tenancy agreement states 30 days’ notice, [The landlord/s] must give the amount of notice required by the RTA, which is 90 days’ notice for periodic tenancies. tenant/s] said he did not realise the termination notice had been emailed to him until 3 December 2025 when his wife saw the email.
[The landlord’s representative/s] advised that [The landlord/s] had obtained the email address from [The tenant/s]’s application to the Tenancy Tribunal. As [The tenant/s] was not at work at the time the second termination notice was to be served [The landlord/s] did not hand it to him (as had happened for the earlier termination notice) so it had been emailed.
Section 51(1) RTA requires a landlord to give at least day days’ notice to a tenant in terminating a periodic tenancy.
Section 136 sets out how any notice or other document that is required to be given or served on a landlord or a tenant can be given or served. The methods notices can be served include being personally given or served 6 and being transmitted to the electronic address for service given by the landlord or tenant as an address for service 7 .
Section 13AB sets out that an “address for service” means an address given by the landlord or the tenant as an address at which notices and other documents relating to the tenancy will be accepted”. An address for service given by a landlord or a tenant must include a physical place in New Zealand and may in addition include a Post Office box number or an electronic address including an email address 8 .
Here the tenancy premises are stated on the tenancy agreement as the physical address for service. However there is no email address recorded and there is no evidence that [The tenant/s] has at any time after the tenancy has started given [The landlord/s] an email address that it can use as an address for service.
I find that [The tenant/s] has not given [The landlord/s] his wife’s email address as an address for service. I find that in recording the email address in his tenancy application does not mean that he has given it to [The landlord/s] as an address for service that he will accept notices relating to the tenancy.
[The tenant/s] has stated he only saw the termination notice on 3 December 2025. That means that he has had less than 90 days’ notice of the notice terminating the tenancy on 13 February 2026.
Therefore [The landlord/s] has not served the notice on [The tenant/s] in keeping with the service requirements of the RTA and as a result he has not received 90 days’ notice of the termination as required under s 51. The Tribunal has 6 See section 136(1)(a) RTA 7 See section 136(1)(d) RTA 8 See section 13AB(2) and (3) RTA. confirmed in previous decisions that the notice period and service requirements are strict. If the notice is not properly served, it is of no effect 9 .
Accordingly I find that the termination notice dated 14 November 2025 is not valid as [The tenant/s] did not receive 90 days’ notice. That means the termination notice dated 14 November 2025 is of no effect.
Given this finding I am not required to consider any further issue involving [The tenant/s]’s retaliatory notice application as [The tenant/s]’s tenancy will not end on 13 February 2026. 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.

It is declared that the termination notice issued by the landlord on 14 November 2025 is not valid and is of no effect. The tenancy will not end on 13 February 2026.

Reasons

[The tenant/s] attended the hearing by telephone. He was supported by [The tenant’s support person/s]. [The landlord’s representative/s] attended by video representing [The landlord/s].

A case conference for this matter was heard 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. He has lived in tenancy premises for around 35 years, as before [The landlord/s] purchased the [business] in 2017 he was employed by the previous [business operator]. [The tenant/s]’s employment at the [business] was not continuous. He worked in Australia for around 4 years from around 2011 to 2105, during which time [The tenant/s]’s wife took over the tenancy. On 27 July 2017 he entered into a tenancy agreement of the premises as the sole tenant.

The tenancy premises is a four bedroomed house and is part of a community of houses in [Location] owned by the local iwi who lease them to [The landlord/s] for use by its employees.

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.

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 he 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 tenant’s claims

[The tenant/s] 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) for 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].

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 it was filed within the prescribed period of 28 working days of the second termination being received 1 . [The tenant/s] consented to the first notice being revoked before the end of the period of notice under the first termination notice. 2

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] would have to file a second application relating to the same issue. 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 to 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 to the balance of probability the claim needs to be dismissed.

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”. 1 See s 54(3) RTA 2 See s 51(6) RTA

Neither [The tenant/s] nor [The landlord/s] dispute that this is a service tenancy. They both accept [The tenant/s]’s tenancy was granted as a term of his employment. The fact that it is a service tenancy is stated in [The tenant/s]’s tenancy agreement.

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

[The tenant/s]’s belief is that “the house comes with the job, and he would be able to leave at the premises until he decided to retire or deceased. He has raised that the tenancy agreement is part of his employment and as his employment has not ended he does not see how [The landlord/s] can end his tenancy.

Here, [The tenant/s]’s tenancy is periodic is set out in his tenancy agreement.

[The landlord/s] has issued its 90-day notice under section 51 of the RTA. That provision enables a landlord of a periodic tenancy to give a tenant 90 days’ notice to terminate a tenancy without having to provide 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 is the only provision that enables a landlord to terminate a service tenancy then that would mean a tenant under a service tenancy would have the right to stay in the property they were tenanted 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 3 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 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 3 District Court, Christchurch, 30/5/2000 the tenancy of particular premises that has been leased to the tenant even though the tenant’s employment has not ended.

I also note that a) [The tenant/s]’s employment terms 4 records under the heading “Housing ([Location])” that accommodation is not guaranteed in a [Location] house., and b) [The tenant/s]’s tenancy agreement sets out that he “may be required to move to alterative accommodation on [The landlord/s]’s request. If this is required, [The landlord/s] will endeavour to provide the tenant with 30 days written notice 5 ”.

For the above reasons I am not satisfied that the particular house [The tenant/s] leases comes with the job as he has submitted or that he is able to stay there until his employment with [The landlord/s] ends or he dies. As stated above [The landlord/s] are able to give him a 90 day notice to end the tenancy.

Is the 90 day notice valid?

Section 54 sets out when the Tribunal can declare a termination notice is retaliatory. Section 54(1) requires that 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 all of the requirements set out in s 51(3).

[The tenant/s] raised that the second notice was served on him by [The landlord/s] attaching it to an email which was sent to his wife’s email address. He said he had not given [The landlord/s] his wife’s email address. He was not sure where the got the email address from. He said his wife did not check her emails often or on a regular basis and that he did not access her email address. [The 4 As set out in the letter dated 29 April 2015 with the previous owner of the [business]. The employment contract terms were novated, when the business was sold to [The landlord/s]. 5 Even though the tenancy agreement states 30 days’ notice, [The landlord/s] must give the amount of notice required by the RTA, which is 90 days’ notice for periodic tenancies. tenant/s] said he did not realise the termination notice had been emailed to him until 3 December 2025 when his wife saw the email.

[The landlord’s representative/s] advised that [The landlord/s] had obtained the email address from [The tenant/s]’s application to the Tenancy Tribunal. As [The tenant/s] was not at work at the time the second termination notice was to be served [The landlord/s] did not hand it to him (as had happened for the earlier termination notice) so it had been emailed.

Section 51(1) RTA requires a landlord to give at least day days’ notice to a tenant in terminating a periodic tenancy.

Section 136 sets out how any notice or other document that is required to be given or served on a landlord or a tenant can be given or served. The methods notices can be served include being personally given or served 6 and being transmitted to the electronic address for service given by the landlord or tenant as an address for service 7 .

Section 13AB sets out that an “address for service” means an address given by the landlord or the tenant as an address at which notices and other documents relating to the tenancy will be accepted”. An address for service given by a landlord or a tenant must include a physical place in New Zealand and may in addition include a Post Office box number or an electronic address including an email address 8 .

Here the tenancy premises are stated on the tenancy agreement as the physical address for service. However there is no email address recorded and there is no evidence that [The tenant/s] has at any time after the tenancy has started given [The landlord/s] an email address that it can use as an address for service.

I find that [The tenant/s] has not given [The landlord/s] his wife’s email address as an address for service. I find that in recording the email address in his tenancy application does not mean that he has given it to [The landlord/s] as an address for service that he will accept notices relating to the tenancy.

[The tenant/s] has stated he only saw the termination notice on 3 December 2025. That means that he has had less than 90 days’ notice of the notice terminating the tenancy on 13 February 2026.

Therefore [The landlord/s] has not served the notice on [The tenant/s] in keeping with the service requirements of the RTA and as a result he has not received 90 days’ notice of the termination as required under s 51. The Tribunal has 6 See section 136(1)(a) RTA 7 See section 136(1)(d) RTA 8 See section 13AB(2) and (3) RTA. confirmed in previous decisions that the notice period and service requirements are strict. If the notice is not properly served, it is of no effect 9 .

Accordingly I find that the termination notice dated 14 November 2025 is not valid as [The tenant/s] did not receive 90 days’ notice. That means the termination notice dated 14 November 2025 is of no effect.

Given this finding I am not required to consider any further issue involving [The tenant/s]’s retaliatory notice application as [The tenant/s]’s tenancy will not end on 13 February 2026. 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 5371833 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5371833 — 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?

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?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions