How much money was awarded in case 5390666?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $19,800.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5390666?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5390666?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12984420-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5390666?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $19,800.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5390666?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5390666?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12984420-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 7, 32 Dudley Road, Mission Bay, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5390666 — Rent arrears

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5390666 about?

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

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5390666 — net $15,428.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 20 January 2026	$19,800.00	Rent arrears to 20 January 2026
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$15,428.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$15,428.00

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

The tenancy of James Weggery and Kayla Dannhauser at Unit/Flat Unit 7, 32 Dudley Road, Mission Bay, Auckland 1071 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11:59pm on Tuesday 03 February 2026.

James Weggery and Kayla Dannhauser must pay [The landlord/s] $15,428.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by telephone. A representative of the landlord’s agent attended the hearing for the landlord. Ms Dannhauser attended the hearing and advised that she had authority to speak for Mr Weggery.

The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond.

The landlord had applied for unpaid water rates. However, it transpired during the hearing that the water bills are in the tenant’s name and have not been paid by the landlord. This claim was withdrawn.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The rent arrears are substantial. The tenant was more than 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. The landlord is seeking termination of the tenancy.

Section 55(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that where rent was 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed, “... the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy ...”. Section 55(1)(a) of the RTA is subject to section 55(2), which provides: The Tribunal may refuse to make an order under subsection (1) if, but only if, it is satisfied that the breach has been remedied (where it is capable of remedy), the landlord has been compensated for any loss arising from the breach, and it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of a kind to which this section applies (but see also section 78A(3)(b)).

Ms Dannhauser has provided evidence showing that has taken steps to obtain funds to pay the rent arrears. However, the rent arrears have not been paid. Therefore, it is not open to me to refuse to make the order to terminate the tenancy.

The tenancy is terminated in accordance with section 55(1)(a) of the RTA.

Is there a joint tenancy?

The landlord provided rent records in the form of a rent ledger which prove the amount of rent arrears owing is $19,800.00. Ms Dannhauser says that as there are two tenants named on the tenancy agreement, she should only have to pay half of this amount.

In Harrison v Shields (DC Dunedin, NP435/00, 2 September 2002, Judge MacAskill), the District Court found that the there was a joint tenancy at common law having cited the following passage from 9(1) Halsbury's Laws of England para 1079: Joint and several liability arises where two or more persons join in the same instrument in making a promise to the same person, and at the same time each of the individually makes the same promise to the same promisee...

The tenancy agreement in this case does not explicitly provide for joint and several liability. However, Ms Dannhauser has signed a single tenancy agreement with Mr Weggery. They are jointly recorded on the tenancy agreement as the “tenant” and they have agreed to the same obligations with the same landlord. I find that notwithstanding the tenancy agreement being silent on this point, there is a joint tenancy at common law.

Where tenants enter into a joint tenancy, they are jointly and severally liable for all obligations under the tenancy agreement. This means that each tenant is responsible for ensuring compliance with the agreement as a whole, regardless of individual contributions or agreements made privately between co-tenants.

I acknowledge that this may place a financial burden on Ms Dannhauser. However, the law is clear: where there is a joint tenancy, the landlord is entitled to recover rent arrears from any or all joint tenants.

I note that if the landlord pursues only Ms Dannhauser for the debt or the majority of the debt, it is open to her to pursue a claim in the Disputes Tribunal against Mr Weggery for his share. Suppression and the filing fee:

The landlord has wholly succeeded with its claim. For this reason, I order reimbursement of the filing fee and grant the landlord’s application for suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5390666 — net $15,428.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 20 January 2026	$19,800.00	Rent arrears to 20 January 2026
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$15,428.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$15,428.00

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 tenancy of James Weggery and Kayla Dannhauser at Unit/Flat Unit 7, 32 Dudley Road, Mission Bay, Auckland 1071 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11:59pm on Tuesday 03 February 2026.
James Weggery and Kayla Dannhauser must pay [The landlord/s] $15,428.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $4,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by telephone. A representative of the landlord’s agent attended the hearing for the landlord. Ms Dannhauser attended the hearing and advised that she had authority to speak for Mr Weggery.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond.
The landlord had applied for unpaid water rates. However, it transpired during the hearing that the water bills are in the tenant’s name and have not been paid by the landlord. This claim was withdrawn.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The rent arrears are substantial. The tenant was more than 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed. The landlord is seeking termination of the tenancy.
Section 55(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that where rent was 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed, “... the Tribunal shall make an order terminating the tenancy ...”. Section 55(1)(a) of the RTA is subject to section 55(2), which provides: The Tribunal may refuse to make an order under subsection (1) if, but only if, it is satisfied that the breach has been remedied (where it is capable of remedy), the landlord has been compensated for any loss arising from the breach, and it is unlikely that the tenant will commit any further breach of a kind to which this section applies (but see also section 78A(3)(b)).
Ms Dannhauser has provided evidence showing that has taken steps to obtain funds to pay the rent arrears. However, the rent arrears have not been paid. Therefore, it is not open to me to refuse to make the order to terminate the tenancy.
The tenancy is terminated in accordance with section 55(1)(a) of the RTA.

Is there a joint tenancy?

The landlord provided rent records in the form of a rent ledger which prove the amount of rent arrears owing is $19,800.00. Ms Dannhauser says that as there are two tenants named on the tenancy agreement, she should only have to pay half of this amount.
In Harrison v Shields (DC Dunedin, NP435/00, 2 September 2002, Judge MacAskill), the District Court found that the there was a joint tenancy at common law having cited the following passage from 9(1) Halsbury's Laws of England para 1079: Joint and several liability arises where two or more persons join in the same instrument in making a promise to the same person, and at the same time each of the individually makes the same promise to the same promisee...
The tenancy agreement in this case does not explicitly provide for joint and several liability. However, Ms Dannhauser has signed a single tenancy agreement with Mr Weggery. They are jointly recorded on the tenancy agreement as the “tenant” and they have agreed to the same obligations with the same landlord. I find that notwithstanding the tenancy agreement being silent on this point, there is a joint tenancy at common law.
Where tenants enter into a joint tenancy, they are jointly and severally liable for all obligations under the tenancy agreement. This means that each tenant is responsible for ensuring compliance with the agreement as a whole, regardless of individual contributions or agreements made privately between co-tenants.
I acknowledge that this may place a financial burden on Ms Dannhauser. However, the law is clear: where there is a joint tenancy, the landlord is entitled to recover rent arrears from any or all joint tenants.
I note that if the landlord pursues only Ms Dannhauser for the debt or the majority of the debt, it is open to her to pursue a claim in the Disputes Tribunal against Mr Weggery for his share. Suppression and the filing fee:
The landlord has wholly succeeded with its claim. For this reason, I order reimbursement of the filing fee and grant the landlord’s application for suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5390666 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Unit 7, 32 Dudley Road, Mission Bay, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5390666 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Unit 7, 32 Dudley Road, Mission Bay, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Is there a joint tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Is there a joint tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions