Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5385886 — Harassment
Decided 9 Feb 2026 · Published 9 Feb 2026 · Application 5385886
- Harassment
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 notice issued on 10 November 2025 to terminate the tenancy on 12 February 2026 is declared invalid and of no effect.
- The application for rehearing is declined.
Reasons
- The tenant’s claim was filed on 11 November 2025.
- The tenant claimed that: i. A notice issued on 10 November 2025 to terminate the tenancy on 12 February 2026 was retaliatory and should therefore be declared invalid, (section 54 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (Act), ii. That the landlord had interfered with the tenants right to reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy to such an extent amounting to harassment (section 38(3) of the Act), iii. That the landlord had failed to take all reasonable steps to ensure that none of the landlord’s other tenants causes or permits any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises (section 45(1)(e) of the Act) Background
- The matter was set down for an in person hearing on 22 December 2025. On 16 December 2025, the tenant requested that the hearing be changed to a video hearing. This request was declined, and the parties advised accordingly in writing.
- On 22 December 2025, the landlord appeared, there was no appearance by the tenant. The Tribunal dismissed the claims.
- On 14 January 2026, the tenant filed an application seeking a rehearing on the basis that they had not received advice that their request to change the mode of hearing had been declined. The tenant also claimed that they had sought an adjournment to late January / February 2026, and that they had insufficient time to consider the landlord’s evidence in reply.
- On 19 January 2026, the application for rehearing was scheduled for a video hearing this afternoon at 2pm. Yesterday afternoon (Sunday), the tenant sent an email to the Hamilton Registry seeking an adjournment on the basis that they were unwell and suffering stress. This request was placed before me first thing this morning. I considered the request and declined it, noting that this was an application for a rehearing only, and directed the tenant should join the MS teams link in the notice of hearing.
- Regrettably, this advice was not passed to the tenant. A representative for the landlord has appeared (the same person that appeared on the last occasion). The tenant did not join the link. I asked the Registry to call the tenant but am advised that the call went to voicemail.
- Usually, the Tribunal is required to have a hearing to decide whether to grant a rehearing of the original matter.
- Initially, I considered adjourning the matter. However, having considered the detailed written submissions filed by the tenant concerning the rehearing, I am satisfied that, in the circumstances, it is appropriate to deal with the application for rehearing on the papers without further delay. Law
- Section 105(1) of the Act provides that the Tribunal has the power to order a rehearing where “a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur”.
- Usually, the party applying for the rehearing must show that something went wrong with the Tribunal’s procedure, for example, that they did not receive notice of the hearing, or they were not able to properly present their case. Analysis and decision
- The parties were advised in writing on 16 December 2025 that the tenant’s request to change the hearing from in person to video had been declined. The notice was sent to the tenant’s email address as provided in the application. There is no record of a request for an adjournment, which appears to have been raised for the first time in the application for rehearing on 14 January 2026. I also consider that seven days was sufficient time for the tenant to consider the landlord’s evidence in response to the tenant’s application.
- The additional material provided by the tenant this morning included the tenancy agreement. The tenant advises that the tenancy is in fact for a fixed term to expire on 27 February 2026 and cannot be terminated by notice before that date. They are correct.
- The landlord states that having received the tenancy agreement they accept that this is the case and concede that the notice issued on 10 November 2025 was in error and is therefore invalid and of no effect.
- The effective period for giving notice that the fixed-term tenancy would not become periodic upon expiry has now passed; that is, notice needed to be given no more than 90 days and no less than 21 days before the expiry date (see section 60A of the Act). Any further notice will now need to be issued after the fixed term has expired.
- In the circumstances, I consider it appropriate to make a declaration that the notice is invalid, as it appears that this may be one of the causes of stress for the tenant.
- In conclusion, the request for an adjournment is declined. I have proceeded to deal with the application for rehearing on the written material provided by the tenant. I am not satisfied that a miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred. The notice of hearing advising of the date, time, and place of hearing was sent to the tenant, as was written notice declining the request on 16 December 2025 to change the hearing from in person to video.
- The application for rehearing is dismissed. Accordingly, the order dismissing the substantive claims stands. Name suppression
- The landlord has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.
- Section 95A (4) further provides the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, may order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.
- I am satisfied that the facts and reasoning of this decision are in the public interest, I am not satisfied that this interest necessarily extends to the name of the tenant.
- Having regard to the tenant’s personal circumstances there are sufficient grounds to depart from the principle of open justice and to exercise the discretion in subsection 95A (4).