What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5377901 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5377901?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5377901?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5377901?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13257065-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5377901 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5377901?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5377901?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5377901?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13257065-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5377901 — Exemplary damages

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

On 4 November 2025, the landlord filed an application seeking compensation and exemplary damages for termination of the tenancy without grounds, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
At the commencement of the hearing the Tribunal confirmed the parties to the claim.
The claim was filed in the names of Colette Senger, Gunther Senger, Tamarin Senger and Marshaleno Valensky.
Only the named parties on the tenancy agreement can bring a claim against the other.
The most recent tenancy agreement named Colette Senger and Gunther Senger as tenants of the property. On that basis, only Colette Senger and Gunther Senger have standing under the contract to bring this claim against the landlord. The case details have been amended to reflect this. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence. Background and timeline
Having considered the oral evidence and documents before me I find the following facts on the balance of probabilities: a. On 2 September 2023, the tenants Colette Senger, Gunther Senger, Tamarin Senger and Marshaleno Valensky entered into a fixed term tenancy with the landlords [landlord] and [landlord]. b. The fixed term ended on 25 October 2024. c. On 26 October 2024, Colette Senger and Gunther Senger entered into a new fixed term tenancy with [landlord] and [landlord]. d. The fixed term was due to end on 6 November 2025. e. On 2 September 2025, the landlords gave the tenants notice terminating the tenancy at the end of the fixed term. The notice stated: “Due to family commitments, we will be relocating back and unfortunately will not be able to renew your tenancy agreement. Your current tenancy will end on 6 th November 2025, which will be the final day of your renting.” f. On 22 September 2025, the tenants sought early termination of the tenancy on the basis they had secured alternative accommodation. g. The landlord’s agreed to early termination of the fixed term and the tenancy ended on 23 October 2025.

Did the landlord lawfully terminate the tenancy?

The tenants claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 60AA of the Act.
Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A of the Act. Tenant’s submissions
The tenants submitted that the termination notice on 2 September 2025 was unlawful, false, and misleading. The tenants said the landlords terminated the tenancy saying they needed to move back into the property. However, after vacating the premises they discovered the landlords did not move back into the property and it was being marketed for sale. Landlord’s submissions
The landlord said they lawfully sought to terminate the tenancy at the end of the fixed term, following the advice of Tenancy Services.
The landlord said the notice to end the tenancy was served on the tenants on 2 September 2025. The notice told the tenants the tenancy would not be renewed and that the 6 November 2025, the last day of the fixed term, would be the last day of the tenancy.
The landlords said the notice was served during the effective period, 66 days prior to the end of the fixed term, and there was no obligation under the Act for them to provide a reason for their decision not to continue with the tenancy.
The landlord told the Tribunal they never told the tenants they were moving back into the property, and the notice did not specify this. They said their circumstances had changed, prompting a move back to Hamilton, and meant they had to market the property for sale. Analysis and decisions
Section 50(1)(a) of the Act allows a fixed term tenancy to be terminated: “... on the expiry of the term of the tenancy or, if any of sections 55AA, 56A(1), 58(1)(d), (da), 58A, 59, 59A, or 59B apply, by giving notice in accordance with the applicable section:”.
Section 60A(c) of the Act states that on the expiry of the fixed term of the tenancy the tenancy becomes periodic unless: “Within the effective period, either party gives to the other party written notice of their intention not to continue with the tenancy;”
Section 60A(2A) of the Act states: “The effective period is the period that starts on the 90 th day before the date on which the tenancy expires and ends on the 21 st day before that date.”
In this case the fixed term of the tenancy of the tenancy was due to end on 6 November 2025. The landlord gave the tenants written notice of their intention not to continue with tenancy on 2 September 2025. The notice was given 66 days before the end of the fixed term and within the effective period being 8 August 2025 to 16 October 2025.
Section 50(1)(a) does not require landlord’s to provide reasons for ending a fixed term tenancy. The Act simply requires landlord’s to give tenants notice ending the tenancy, during the effective period. I therefore find the landlord’s did not breach section 60AA of the Act. The notice was issued in accordance with section 50(1)(a) and section 60A(c) & (2A). The notice was not given in circumstances where the landlord was not entitled to possession of the property and the claim is dismissed. Other matters
Under section 95A of the Act a party who has been either wholly or substantially successful is entitled to name suppression unless the Tribunal finds that there are reasons relating to the conduct of the party not to do so.
The landlord has been wholly successful and is granted name suppression.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

On 4 November 2025, the landlord filed an application seeking compensation and exemplary damages for termination of the tenancy without grounds, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
At the commencement of the hearing the Tribunal confirmed the parties to the claim.
The claim was filed in the names of Colette Senger, Gunther Senger, Tamarin Senger and Marshaleno Valensky.
Only the named parties on the tenancy agreement can bring a claim against the other.
The most recent tenancy agreement named Colette Senger and Gunther Senger as tenants of the property. On that basis, only Colette Senger and Gunther Senger have standing under the contract to bring this claim against the landlord. The case details have been amended to reflect this. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence. Background and timeline
Having considered the oral evidence and documents before me I find the following facts on the balance of probabilities: a. On 2 September 2023, the tenants Colette Senger, Gunther Senger, Tamarin Senger and Marshaleno Valensky entered into a fixed term tenancy with the landlords [landlord] and [landlord]. b. The fixed term ended on 25 October 2024. c. On 26 October 2024, Colette Senger and Gunther Senger entered into a new fixed term tenancy with [landlord] and [landlord]. d. The fixed term was due to end on 6 November 2025. e. On 2 September 2025, the landlords gave the tenants notice terminating the tenancy at the end of the fixed term. The notice stated: “Due to family commitments, we will be relocating back and unfortunately will not be able to renew your tenancy agreement. Your current tenancy will end on 6 th November 2025, which will be the final day of your renting.” f. On 22 September 2025, the tenants sought early termination of the tenancy on the basis they had secured alternative accommodation. g. The landlord’s agreed to early termination of the fixed term and the tenancy ended on 23 October 2025.

Did the landlord lawfully terminate the tenancy?

The tenants claim that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 60AA of the Act.
Under Section 60AA a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A of the Act. Tenant’s submissions
The tenants submitted that the termination notice on 2 September 2025 was unlawful, false, and misleading. The tenants said the landlords terminated the tenancy saying they needed to move back into the property. However, after vacating the premises they discovered the landlords did not move back into the property and it was being marketed for sale. Landlord’s submissions
The landlord said they lawfully sought to terminate the tenancy at the end of the fixed term, following the advice of Tenancy Services.
The landlord said the notice to end the tenancy was served on the tenants on 2 September 2025. The notice told the tenants the tenancy would not be renewed and that the 6 November 2025, the last day of the fixed term, would be the last day of the tenancy.
The landlords said the notice was served during the effective period, 66 days prior to the end of the fixed term, and there was no obligation under the Act for them to provide a reason for their decision not to continue with the tenancy.
The landlord told the Tribunal they never told the tenants they were moving back into the property, and the notice did not specify this. They said their circumstances had changed, prompting a move back to Hamilton, and meant they had to market the property for sale. Analysis and decisions
Section 50(1)(a) of the Act allows a fixed term tenancy to be terminated: “... on the expiry of the term of the tenancy or, if any of sections 55AA, 56A(1), 58(1)(d), (da), 58A, 59, 59A, or 59B apply, by giving notice in accordance with the applicable section:”.
Section 60A(c) of the Act states that on the expiry of the fixed term of the tenancy the tenancy becomes periodic unless: “Within the effective period, either party gives to the other party written notice of their intention not to continue with the tenancy;”
Section 60A(2A) of the Act states: “The effective period is the period that starts on the 90 th day before the date on which the tenancy expires and ends on the 21 st day before that date.”
In this case the fixed term of the tenancy of the tenancy was due to end on 6 November 2025. The landlord gave the tenants written notice of their intention not to continue with tenancy on 2 September 2025. The notice was given 66 days before the end of the fixed term and within the effective period being 8 August 2025 to 16 October 2025.
Section 50(1)(a) does not require landlord’s to provide reasons for ending a fixed term tenancy. The Act simply requires landlord’s to give tenants notice ending the tenancy, during the effective period. I therefore find the landlord’s did not breach section 60AA of the Act. The notice was issued in accordance with section 50(1)(a) and section 60A(c) & (2A). The notice was not given in circumstances where the landlord was not entitled to possession of the property and the claim is dismissed. Other matters
Under section 95A of the Act a party who has been either wholly or substantially successful is entitled to name suppression unless the Tribunal finds that there are reasons relating to the conduct of the party not to do so.
The landlord has been wholly successful and is granted name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5377901 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5377901 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord lawfully terminate the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Did the landlord lawfully terminate the tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions