What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5387840 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5387840?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5387840?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5387840?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13007862-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5387840 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5387840?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5387840?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5387840?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13007862-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 1206B, 8 Lakewood Court, Manukau, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5387840 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing on 16 January 2026.
The tenant was represented by her mother Nicki Muir. The landlord was represented by Piyush Odedra.
The tenancy commenced on 24 October 2025. The premises are a unit in a multi-level complex.
The tenancy is a fixed term tenancy due to end on 10 October 2026.
The tenant has applied to the Tribunal to have the fixed term tenancy reduced. During the course of the hearing, it became apparent that the tenant was also claiming that they had been induced to enter the tenancy agreement by way of a misrepresentation. The law
The relevant law applying to this matter is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant (in this case the tenant), 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 more likely than not. This obligation carried by the tenant 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 (DC) TT 233/02, in practical terms this means that; “Like 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.” Reduction of fixed term tenancy
Section 66 RTA provides; “(1) On application by a party to a fixed term tenancy, the Tribunal may make an order reducing the term of the tenancy by a period stated in the order, and making such variations in the terms of the tenancy as are necessary because of the reduction of the term, where it is satisfied that, because of an unforeseen change in the applicants circumstances, the severe hardship which the applicant would suffer if the term of the tenancy were not reduced would be greater than the hardship which the other party to the tendency would suffer if the term were reduced. (2) Where the tribunal makes an order under subsection (1), the Tribunal may order that the applicant pay to the other party an amount determined by the Tribunal by way of reasonable compensation for any loss or damage to the other party which would result from the reduction in the fixed term tenancy.”
The tenant is now a long-haul airline flight attendant. She has ongoing health issues. The tenant says that this means three things; o She needed accommodation close to the airport. o She has to have ready access to a gymnasium. o Access to the gymnasium needs to be on a 24 hour a day basis as her employment is such that she does not keep regular or consistent work hours.
The tenant saw the premises being advertised on Trade Me. The advertisement included photos of a swimming pool and gymnasium.
The tenant arranged a viewing and looked at the premises on 28 August 2025.
The tenant saw that a swimming pool and gymnasium complex operating under the “Fitness Fusion” brand operated out of the complex.
The tenant signed a tenancy agreement on 9 October 2025 with the tenancy to commence on 24 October 2025. The tenancy agreement makes no reference to access to the gymnasium forming any part of the tenancy arrangement. 14The landlord and the gymnasium are unrelated entities with commercial leases in the same premises.
On 9 October 2025, the tenant enquired of the landlord in an email “...how much extra would Gym membership cost? And may I ask if there’s any difference in room 1206B/8 and 302b/8 Lakewood as I believe they are the same price but one comes with a membership?”
The landlord replied the same day that “In relation to the gym you have to personally have to check as we would not be able to deal in regard to the membership costs. Different gym would have different membership cost.” (sic).
On or about 15 or 16 October 2025, the tenant discovered that the gymnasium business had closed. She found a notice on the door to the Gymnasium indicating that it would be closed from 6 October 2025.
Has there been an unforeseen change in the circumstances of the tenant? “Unforeseen” means unexpected, without warning or the opposite of “foreseen. The Tribunal has previously held that a change in the condition of the premises is not an unforeseen change in the tenant’s circumstances. The key factor being a change to the tenant’s circumstances, not those of the landlord.
The change relied on by the tenant is a change to the commercial tenants operating from the building. The gymnasium no longer operates from the premises. That does not in the Tribunal’s view amount to a change in the Tenant’s circumstances. The tenant has not proven an unforeseen change in her circumstances. That part of the tenant’s claim is accordingly dismissed. Misrepresentation
Section 78 (1)(g) RTA provides that the Tribunal shall have jurisdiction to vary or set aside an agreement “Where it appears to the Tribunal that an agreement between the parties has been induced by......misrepresentation or mistake...”
The law relating to misrepresentation is now largely codified in New Zealand under the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017. That Act provides that a party can cancel a contract for misrepresentation, if they were induced to enter into it by a false statement, but only if the misrepresentation was significant [in that it substantially altered the contract) or the truth of the statement was essential to you. The representation must be one of fact, not opinion. The representation must be false and it must relate to a matter of present or past fact, not one which relates to the future.
The tenant relies on what she says is a misrepresentation by the landlord as to the presence of a gymnasium in the building.
I can find no evidence of a representation by the landlord that there was a gymnasium operating from the building, nor that it was a term of any contract with the tenant, that such a business remained operating from the business.
The tenant refers to a promotional video of the building showing the gymnasium. The landlord said that the video had been prepared by a real estate agency some years previously, at a time when the building was for sale.
Even when the tenant raised the issue of a gymnasium membership as part of her tenancy with the landlord, the landlord said that it was not part of their remit and that the tenant would need to make her own enquiries.
For the for there to be a misrepresentation, there must be evidence over a representation by the landlord which is proven to be false. The tenant has not provided evidence which establishes that there was a representation by the landlord as to the presence of a gymnasium.
Is also the law in New Zealand that, in addition to the misrepresentation inducing the contract, either the person making the misrepresentation must have intended to induce it, or the representation must have been such as would induce a normal person to contract (Savill v NZI Finance Ltd [1990] 3 NZLR 135). I am unable to draw that inference on the evidence before me.
For the reasons given above, I find that there has been no misrepresentation by the landlord and the tenant’s claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing on 16 January 2026.

The tenant was represented by her mother Nicki Muir. The landlord was represented by Piyush Odedra.

The tenancy commenced on 24 October 2025. The premises are a unit in a multi-level complex.

The tenancy is a fixed term tenancy due to end on 10 October 2026.

The tenant has applied to the Tribunal to have the fixed term tenancy reduced. During the course of the hearing, it became apparent that the tenant was also claiming that they had been induced to enter the tenancy agreement by way of a misrepresentation. The law

The relevant law applying to this matter is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). As with any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant (in this case the tenant), 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 more likely than not. This obligation carried by the tenant 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 (DC) TT 233/02, in practical terms this means that; “Like 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.” Reduction of fixed term tenancy

Section 66 RTA provides; “(1) On application by a party to a fixed term tenancy, the Tribunal may make an order reducing the term of the tenancy by a period stated in the order, and making such variations in the terms of the tenancy as are necessary because of the reduction of the term, where it is satisfied that, because of an unforeseen change in the applicants circumstances, the severe hardship which the applicant would suffer if the term of the tenancy were not reduced would be greater than the hardship which the other party to the tendency would suffer if the term were reduced. (2) Where the tribunal makes an order under subsection (1), the Tribunal may order that the applicant pay to the other party an amount determined by the Tribunal by way of reasonable compensation for any loss or damage to the other party which would result from the reduction in the fixed term tenancy.”

The tenant is now a long-haul airline flight attendant. She has ongoing health issues. The tenant says that this means three things; o She needed accommodation close to the airport. o She has to have ready access to a gymnasium. o Access to the gymnasium needs to be on a 24 hour a day basis as her employment is such that she does not keep regular or consistent work hours.

The tenant saw the premises being advertised on Trade Me. The advertisement included photos of a swimming pool and gymnasium.

The tenant arranged a viewing and looked at the premises on 28 August 2025.

The tenant saw that a swimming pool and gymnasium complex operating under the “Fitness Fusion” brand operated out of the complex.

The tenant signed a tenancy agreement on 9 October 2025 with the tenancy to commence on 24 October 2025. The tenancy agreement makes no reference to access to the gymnasium forming any part of the tenancy arrangement. 14The landlord and the gymnasium are unrelated entities with commercial leases in the same premises.

On 9 October 2025, the tenant enquired of the landlord in an email “...how much extra would Gym membership cost? And may I ask if there’s any difference in room 1206B/8 and 302b/8 Lakewood as I believe they are the same price but one comes with a membership?”

The landlord replied the same day that “In relation to the gym you have to personally have to check as we would not be able to deal in regard to the membership costs. Different gym would have different membership cost.” (sic).

On or about 15 or 16 October 2025, the tenant discovered that the gymnasium business had closed. She found a notice on the door to the Gymnasium indicating that it would be closed from 6 October 2025.

Has there been an unforeseen change in the circumstances of the tenant? “Unforeseen” means unexpected, without warning or the opposite of “foreseen. The Tribunal has previously held that a change in the condition of the premises is not an unforeseen change in the tenant’s circumstances. The key factor being a change to the tenant’s circumstances, not those of the landlord.

The change relied on by the tenant is a change to the commercial tenants operating from the building. The gymnasium no longer operates from the premises. That does not in the Tribunal’s view amount to a change in the Tenant’s circumstances. The tenant has not proven an unforeseen change in her circumstances. That part of the tenant’s claim is accordingly dismissed. Misrepresentation

Section 78 (1)(g) RTA provides that the Tribunal shall have jurisdiction to vary or set aside an agreement “Where it appears to the Tribunal that an agreement between the parties has been induced by......misrepresentation or mistake...”

The law relating to misrepresentation is now largely codified in New Zealand under the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017. That Act provides that a party can cancel a contract for misrepresentation, if they were induced to enter into it by a false statement, but only if the misrepresentation was significant [in that it substantially altered the contract) or the truth of the statement was essential to you. The representation must be one of fact, not opinion. The representation must be false and it must relate to a matter of present or past fact, not one which relates to the future.

The tenant relies on what she says is a misrepresentation by the landlord as to the presence of a gymnasium in the building.

I can find no evidence of a representation by the landlord that there was a gymnasium operating from the building, nor that it was a term of any contract with the tenant, that such a business remained operating from the business.

The tenant refers to a promotional video of the building showing the gymnasium. The landlord said that the video had been prepared by a real estate agency some years previously, at a time when the building was for sale.

Even when the tenant raised the issue of a gymnasium membership as part of her tenancy with the landlord, the landlord said that it was not part of their remit and that the tenant would need to make her own enquiries.

For the for there to be a misrepresentation, there must be evidence over a representation by the landlord which is proven to be false. The tenant has not provided evidence which establishes that there was a representation by the landlord as to the presence of a gymnasium.

Is also the law in New Zealand that, in addition to the misrepresentation inducing the contract, either the person making the misrepresentation must have intended to induce it, or the representation must have been such as would induce a normal person to contract (Savill v NZI Finance Ltd [1990] 3 NZLR 135). I am unable to draw that inference on the evidence before me.

For the reasons given above, I find that there has been no misrepresentation by the landlord and the tenant’s claim is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5387840 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Unit 1206B, 8 Lakewood Court, Manukau,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5387840 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Unit 1206B, 8 Lakewood Court, Manukau,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions