Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5373661 — Tenancy dispute
Decided 19 Feb 2026 · Published 19 Feb 2026 · Application 5373661
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
M Kan
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/Landlord] name and identifying details.
- The application is dismissed.
Reasons
- The hearing was conducted by teleconference.
- [The landlord’s representative] attended on behalf of the landlord.
- The tenant, [The tenant/s], also attended the hearing.
- During the hearing, [The landlord’s representative] informed me that the parties had reached an agreement, as a result of which [The tenant/s] had vacated the premises. Accordingly, the application before the Tribunal was redundant.
- The application is dismissed. Name suppression
- As the parties reached a settlement before the hearing, I do not consider there to be any public interest in publishing either party’s names or identifying details.
- Accordingly, I order name suppression for both parties on my own initiative under section 95A(4) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.