What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5393721 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 5393721?

Property Damage: $19,182.72 awarded to landlord; Remediation: $80,817.28 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5393721?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5393721?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13785528-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5393721 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 5393721?

Property Damage: $19,182.72 awarded to landlord; Remediation: $80,817.28 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5393721?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5393721?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13785528-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5393721 — Exemplary damages

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5393721 — Exemplary damages | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5393721 — net $96,000.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Remediation	$80,817.28	Remediation
Exemplary damages	$19,182.72	Exemplary damages
Net award	$96,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$96,000.00

Claims and awards for application 5393721 — net $96,000.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Remediation

Amount: $80,817.28
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Remediation

Exemplary damages

Amount: $19,182.72
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Exemplary damages

Net award

Landlord $96,000.00

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $96,000.00

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Exemplary damages

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlords name and identifying details.
The Tribunal orders that the tenancy is deemed terminated on the grounds of abandonment.
David Tuan Anh Nguyen and Ngo Thi Hoai Hien must pay [The landlord/s] $96,000.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Remediation$80,817.28 Exemplary damages$19,182.72 Total award$100,000.00 Bond$4,000.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$96,000.00

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord, seeking compensation and exemplary damages at the end of the tenancy. The premises were used as a cannabis grow house. The house has been extensively damaged from that operation, and also the police operation in ‘raiding’ the premises.
Only the landlord appeared at the hearing today. I am satisfied that the tenant has been properly notified of the hearing, and therefore I will proceed to consider the claim in their absence.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy agreement records that the tenancy commenced on 5 April 2025, and was a fixed term tenancy until 4 April 2026. The tenants are recorded as David Tuan Anh Nguyen and Ngo Thi Hoai Hien.
The evidence is that the tenants had converted the premises into a cannabis grow house. This is supported from the photographs provided by the landlord.
The landlord states that he was notified just prior to Labour Weekend in 2025 (late October), that Police had raided the premises, and that it was being used as a cannabis grow house.
As is commonly the case, the tenants then abandoned the premises, and the landlord has not had further contact with them.
The landlord found extensive damage that had been caused by the tenants and also the police. That included: a. Holes being cut in the floor and ceiling for ventilation. b. The electrical system had been rewired, to bypass the meter board, presumably for lighting and ventilation purposes. Extensive work was needed to rewire the premises, and reconnect power. c. The fence had been knocked down. d. The front door damaged when entry was forced. e. Smoke alarms were missing f. The premises were extensively dirty g. Carpet was destroyed. h. The two ventilation units were destroyed i. Insulation required replacement j. Extensive damage was caused to walls. k. Interior doors were damaged l. The premises were very dirty, with rubbish and pots littering the interior and exterior of the premises.
The landlord advised that the power could not be connected until late January 2026, which delayed repairs being completed, with the remediation work not being finished until the end of March 2026.
The landlord filed this application with the Tribunal, which came to a hearing on 22 June 2026.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

At the hearing, the applicant confirmed their claims are as follows: a. Repairs and cleaning b. Loss of rent c. Exemplary damages for using the premises for an unlawful purpose

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
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.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. 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.

ANALYSIS

As noted above, the landlord seeks an order for the payment of compensation for repairs and cleaning, lost rent, and exemplary damages. The ceiling of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is to make orders up to $100,000.00. The landlord seeked an order to that maximum so that this matter can be addressed in the Tribunal (otherwise a referral to the District Court would be required). Claim 1 – Repairs and cleaning
The landlord seeks remediation costs of $80,817.28, with reference to an invoice from JR Contracting 2007 Limited. The invoice sets out the work that needed to the premises, which includes: a. Rubbish removal. b. Concrete block work c. Electrical work d. Cleaning e. Smoke alarm replacement f. Repairs to the floor. g. Repairs to internal walls h. Front door replacement i. Repairs to fence j. Internal door replacement k. Carpet replacement l. Replacement of internal ventilation units. m. Insulation replacement
Taking the photographs into consideration, I am entirely satisfied that this work is needed to remediate the damage caused by the tenant and the police, which the tenant must be liable for.
While this is a large invoice, I consider the work that would be necessary as reflected in the photographs, is commensurate with the invoiced amount.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and that it occurred during the tenancy. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional when a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
I have no reservation in finding the damage to the premises was intentional, so the tenants are liable for the full remediation cost. Claim 2 – Rent arrears
The landlord seeks rent arrears until the end of March 2026, when the remediation was completed.
The last rent payment was on 17 October 2025. The rent arrears due as of 28 March 2026 is $26,250.00.
The landlord has established the rent arrears claim in full. Claim 3 – Exemplary damages
The landlord claims exemplary damages for the tenants using the premises for an unlawful purpose – the production of cannabis.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.
Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the Act.
In this case I accept that the tenant has committed an unlawful act in the tenancy premises. The act was intentional. There are very strong interests for tenants, landlords and the public generally, that tenants not engage in unlawful acts in tenancy premises. I consider it would be just to make an order of exemplary damages in this case.
The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered for the unlawful use of residential premises is $1,800.00.
Taking into account the gravity of the situation, and the extent of damage caused by the unlawful act, I consider an order of $1,200.00 exemplary damages would be reasonable in the circumstances.

EXTENT OF ORDER

As indicated above, I would find the tenant is liable for: a. Remediation costs$80,817.28 b. Rent compensation$26,250.00 c. Exemplary damages $1,200.00
Those amounts total $108,267.28.
Section 77 of the RTA relates to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, and confirms that the Tribunal can order a party to pay up to $100,000. In this case, the landlord requests that I make an order to that maximum, and is aware he will be forgoing the balance.
Accordingly, I order the tenant to pay the landlord the sum of $100,000.00 immediately, minus the bond.

BOND

I order that the Bond Centre release the bond in full to the landlord to offset the above losses.

TENANCY TERMINATED

For the avoidance of doubt, I order that the tenancy is terminated due to abandonment of the tenant.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the landlord has been wholly successful in the proceeding, so landlord name suppression is ordered.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5393721 — net $96,000.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Remediation	$80,817.28	Remediation
Exemplary damages	$19,182.72	Exemplary damages
Net award	$96,000.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$96,000.00

Claims and awards for application 5393721 — net $96,000.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Remediation

Amount: $80,817.28
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Remediation

Exemplary damages

Amount: $19,182.72
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Exemplary damages

Net award

Landlord $96,000.00

Total payable by Tenant to Landlord

Landlord $96,000.00

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Exemplary damages

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlords name and identifying details.
The Tribunal orders that the tenancy is deemed terminated on the grounds of abandonment.
David Tuan Anh Nguyen and Ngo Thi Hoai Hien must pay [The landlord/s] $96,000.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlord Remediation$80,817.28 Exemplary damages$19,182.72 Total award$100,000.00 Bond$4,000.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$96,000.00

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the landlord, seeking compensation and exemplary damages at the end of the tenancy. The premises were used as a cannabis grow house. The house has been extensively damaged from that operation, and also the police operation in ‘raiding’ the premises.
Only the landlord appeared at the hearing today. I am satisfied that the tenant has been properly notified of the hearing, and therefore I will proceed to consider the claim in their absence.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy agreement records that the tenancy commenced on 5 April 2025, and was a fixed term tenancy until 4 April 2026. The tenants are recorded as David Tuan Anh Nguyen and Ngo Thi Hoai Hien.
The evidence is that the tenants had converted the premises into a cannabis grow house. This is supported from the photographs provided by the landlord.
The landlord states that he was notified just prior to Labour Weekend in 2025 (late October), that Police had raided the premises, and that it was being used as a cannabis grow house.
As is commonly the case, the tenants then abandoned the premises, and the landlord has not had further contact with them.
The landlord found extensive damage that had been caused by the tenants and also the police. That included: a. Holes being cut in the floor and ceiling for ventilation. b. The electrical system had been rewired, to bypass the meter board, presumably for lighting and ventilation purposes. Extensive work was needed to rewire the premises, and reconnect power. c. The fence had been knocked down. d. The front door damaged when entry was forced. e. Smoke alarms were missing f. The premises were extensively dirty g. Carpet was destroyed. h. The two ventilation units were destroyed i. Insulation required replacement j. Extensive damage was caused to walls. k. Interior doors were damaged l. The premises were very dirty, with rubbish and pots littering the interior and exterior of the premises.
The landlord advised that the power could not be connected until late January 2026, which delayed repairs being completed, with the remediation work not being finished until the end of March 2026.
The landlord filed this application with the Tribunal, which came to a hearing on 22 June 2026.

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

At the hearing, the applicant confirmed their claims are as follows: a. Repairs and cleaning b. Loss of rent c. Exemplary damages for using the premises for an unlawful purpose

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
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.
It is the applicant that must prove their case. 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.

ANALYSIS

As noted above, the landlord seeks an order for the payment of compensation for repairs and cleaning, lost rent, and exemplary damages. The ceiling of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is to make orders up to $100,000.00. The landlord seeked an order to that maximum so that this matter can be addressed in the Tribunal (otherwise a referral to the District Court would be required). Claim 1 – Repairs and cleaning
The landlord seeks remediation costs of $80,817.28, with reference to an invoice from JR Contracting 2007 Limited. The invoice sets out the work that needed to the premises, which includes: a. Rubbish removal. b. Concrete block work c. Electrical work d. Cleaning e. Smoke alarm replacement f. Repairs to the floor. g. Repairs to internal walls h. Front door replacement i. Repairs to fence j. Internal door replacement k. Carpet replacement l. Replacement of internal ventilation units. m. Insulation replacement
Taking the photographs into consideration, I am entirely satisfied that this work is needed to remediate the damage caused by the tenant and the police, which the tenant must be liable for.
While this is a large invoice, I consider the work that would be necessary as reflected in the photographs, is commensurate with the invoiced amount.
Where a landlord claims compensation for damage caused by a tenant, the landlord must first prove the damage is more than fair wear and tear, and that it occurred during the tenancy. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional when a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See the High Court decision of Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
I have no reservation in finding the damage to the premises was intentional, so the tenants are liable for the full remediation cost. Claim 2 – Rent arrears
The landlord seeks rent arrears until the end of March 2026, when the remediation was completed.
The last rent payment was on 17 October 2025. The rent arrears due as of 28 March 2026 is $26,250.00.
The landlord has established the rent arrears claim in full. Claim 3 – Exemplary damages
The landlord claims exemplary damages for the tenants using the premises for an unlawful purpose – the production of cannabis.
Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.
Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the Act.
In this case I accept that the tenant has committed an unlawful act in the tenancy premises. The act was intentional. There are very strong interests for tenants, landlords and the public generally, that tenants not engage in unlawful acts in tenancy premises. I consider it would be just to make an order of exemplary damages in this case.
The maximum level of exemplary damages that can be ordered for the unlawful use of residential premises is $1,800.00.
Taking into account the gravity of the situation, and the extent of damage caused by the unlawful act, I consider an order of $1,200.00 exemplary damages would be reasonable in the circumstances.

EXTENT OF ORDER

As indicated above, I would find the tenant is liable for: a. Remediation costs$80,817.28 b. Rent compensation$26,250.00 c. Exemplary damages $1,200.00
Those amounts total $108,267.28.
Section 77 of the RTA relates to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, and confirms that the Tribunal can order a party to pay up to $100,000. In this case, the landlord requests that I make an order to that maximum, and is aware he will be forgoing the balance.
Accordingly, I order the tenant to pay the landlord the sum of $100,000.00 immediately, minus the bond.

BOND

I order that the Bond Centre release the bond in full to the landlord to offset the above losses.

TENANCY TERMINATED

For the avoidance of doubt, I order that the tenancy is terminated due to abandonment of the tenant.

NAME SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal can order name suppression when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceeding. In this case the landlord has been wholly successful in the proceeding, so landlord name suppression is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5393721 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5393721 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

EXTENT OF ORDER

BOND

TENANCY TERMINATED

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

LANDLORDS CLAIMS

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANALYSIS

EXTENT OF ORDER

BOND

TENANCY TERMINATED

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions