Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5393761 — Exemplary damages at 48 Clonbern Road, Remuera, Auckland 1050
Published 24 March 2026 · Application 5393761
Tenant favoured
- Exemplary damages
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Tenant favoured
From published order
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
C Lamdin
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $3,128.00
- Total balance for Landlord to pay Tenant
- $3,128.00
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exemplary damages; unlawful termination | $3,100.00 | Exemplary damages; unlawful termination | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $3,128.00 | ||
| Total payable by Landlord to Tenant | $3,128.00 |
Claims and awards for application 5393761 — net $3,128.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Exemplary damages; unlawful termination
- Amount
- $3,100.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Exemplary damages; unlawful termination
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Tenant $3,128.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant
Tenant $3,128.00
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Harry Shi must pay Liam Andrew Hosking, Thomas Wood, Gabriel Starr Nolan, Kingsley Wills and Isaac David Wood $3,128.00 immediately as set out in the table below.
Reasons
- The tenants Liam Andrew Hosking, Thomas Wood, Gabriel Starr Nolan, Kingsley Wills and Isaac David Wood attended the hearing. Mr Nolan represented them for the purpose of the hearing.
- Mr Shi attended for the landlord and was supported by Ms Guo.
- A Mandarin interpreter Mr Deng, provided assistance to Mr Shi and the Tribunal.
- This is a tenant application. The tenants claim the termination notice given them was a retaliatory notice See section 54 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 1986, (the “RTA”).
- The tenancy agreement records a one-year fixed-term tenancy as beginning on 17 September 2024 and ending on 17 September 2025.
- The tenants said that when in September 2025 the fixed-term tenancy expired, the landlord who lived directly next door contacted them by email or text and broached the subject of them re-signing another fixed-term tenancy.
- The tenants did not respond.
- The tenants said that on 8 November 2025, the landlord sent an email to them saying: “Hi Isaac Wood. Our fixed tenants agreement has been expired 2 months ago. I am still waiting for your advice. Christmas day coming soon. If you don’t plan vacant the house we should Re-signing the agreement now. I am expecting your early reply with thanks [sic] Regards Haiming
- The tenants produced a copy of the above email.
- The tenants responded on 17 November 2025 with the following text message, also produced to the Tribunal: “Hi Harry, It’s Gabe from 48 Clonbern. We’ve discussed as a flat and we’d like to remain on a periodic tenancy, however we do not intend of leaving the house anytime soon. Regarding the rent increase, we do not believe this is fair due to rental prices falling in Auckland. However if you do insist on raising the rental price to $1600 you must give us 60 days written notice as per the Resedential Tenancies Act 1986. ...” [sic].
- On 18 November 2025 the landlord responded by email: “Hi Isaac and room mates thank you for your information. Regarding the expiration of the fixed lease on September 17, 2025, we discussed the possibility of renewal. Since we did not receive a response or notification from you during this period we scheduled a meeting in early November to discuss this matter. During the meeting, we mentioned that our first priority was to end the lease on December 31, 2025, because the landlord did not intend to continue renting the property. Today, after another meeting and mutual agreement, if you are pressed for time on December 31, 2025, the final end date will be extended by a maximum of two weeks to January 13, 2026. [sic]. Kind regards”
- Other correspondence was exchanged advising each other of their interpretation of the law, what suited each of them, and seeking clarification as to what their plans were.
- On 19 November Mr Shi sent an email to the tenants saying: “Hi Isaac and all room mates. According to tenant law, a landlord must give 42 days’ notice to terminate the lease. The landlord’s reason is that they are moving back into the house.” [sic] ...
- During the hearing Mr Shi said all notices were given in writing, but I determine that was not the case: I determine the parties had oral discussions about the tenancy ending, and the “notices” included messages and emails which were somewhat vague. No written notice to terminate the tenancy that complied with section 51(3) of the RTA was given to the tenants.
- Section 51(3) of the RTA requires the following: (3)Every notice to terminate a tenancy shall— (a)be in writing; and (b)identify the premises to which it relates; and (c)specify the date by which the tenant is to vacate the premises; and (ca)if the landlord gives less than 90 days’ notice, set out the reasons for the termination; and (d)be signed by the party giving the notice, or by that party’s agent.
- On 18 November 2025 the landlord sought to give notice to terminate the tenancy, and the reason given was that “the landlord did not intend to continue renting the property”. I have turned my mind to whether this was a 90 day notice to terminate, or a notice to terminate under any other provision of the RTA, and I am not persuaded it is. I consider it likely that Mr Shi was not familiar with the requirements to terminate a tenancy under the RTA, and he believed that because the fixed-term tenancy had ended he was at liberty to “discontinue” the tenancy.
- Following probing from the tenants, on 19 November 2025 the landlord changed his reason for terminating the tenancy to being that the landlord wished to move back into the premises. This was an attempt by the landlord to comply with the RTA section 51(2) which says: (2)A landlord may terminate a periodic tenancy by giving at least 42 days’ notice if— (a)the owner of the premises requires the premises, within 90 days after the termination date, as the principal place of residence for at least 90 days for the owner or a member of the owner’s family;
- This was the first time the landlord had raised the prospect of moving back into the premises and it came after the tenant pointed out the previous defects in the landlord’s reasons and notice periods for termination. The time frame also conveniently almost aligned with the tenancy ending by the end of the year. I do not believe it was an honest reason from the landlord.
- It is not sufficient that following the tenants moving out the owner or a member of the owner’s family ended up living at the property: The legislation is worded so as to be interpreted that at the time the notice was given, the owner intending on moving back into the premises. Negotiations regarding the renewal of this tenancy had begun two months earlier in September 2025, and only after the landlord had been unable to persuade the tenants to sign a new fixed-term tenancy (and possibly with a rent increase of $50.00 per week), and the tenants had pressed the landlord for a reason with a correspondingly accurate time period, had the landlord given the reason of “moving back in” to end the tenancy.
Was the termination retaliatory or was it unlawful?
- Under section 54(1) RTA the Tribunal can declare a termination retaliatory if the tenant can prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord.
- Section 54(1) requires that for a notice to be declared retaliatory, it must be a lawful notice in as much as it complies with section 51 of the RTA.
- As stated above, the landlord’s notice did not comply with section 51(3) of the RTA. Moreover I have determined the termination was not given because the owner wished to move back into the premises. This means the notice was unlawful and as such cannot in law be a retaliatory notice.
- Unlawful notices are addressed under section 60AA of the RTA.
- 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.
- There is no information from the landlord that shows he made any attempt to address the lawfulness of the termination until the tenants brought it to his intention. The landlord wasn’t misled or mistaken; he simply declined to turn his mind to the law that governs residential tenancies. I determine the landlord knew that when he gave notice to terminate the tenancy he wasn’t complying with the requirements of the RTA.
- Breaching section 60AA 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 RTA.
- I determine the landlord committed an unlawful act under this section.
- Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
- This was a tenancy which involved five independent adults. The weekly rent was $1,550.00 which is a considerable sum. The tenants had lived at the premises for a year and were well settled. Having to move was a disruption for each of them which they should not have been put through. They made it clear in their correspondence to the landlord their intention was to stay at the premises. Tenants have a right to expect tenancies to be stable and predictable to the extent that this is consistent with the law. In this case it wasn’t.
- Nor should a tenant be pressured into signing a fixed term tenancy. The law provides that fixed-term tenancies become periodic at the expiry of the fixed- term. As well as stability for parties, the RTA balances this by providing flexibility for tenant. A fixed-term tenancy is a huge financial commitment for tenants, and tenants should not be forced into signing them or otherwise having their tenancies terminated.
- The landlord was at pains to say that he had done repairs and maintenance during the tenancy that may have exceeded fair wear and tear without ever seeking reimbursement from the tenants. He said he “wished that the tenants always felt satisfied” and that he did his best to be a good landlord. I do not doubt the landlord’s good intentions and I accept that it is possible that in many regards the landlord did an excellent job. However good work in one area does not excuse unlawful acts in other areas.
- I determine that in this case it is appropriate to make an award of exemplary damages and I consider two weeks rent to be the minimum amount that would be appropriate in this case. That is what I award.
- Because the tenants have substantially succeeded with their claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s109(3), s51, s51(2), s51(3), s54, s54(1), s60, s60AA
Key findings
- Dispute theme: exemplary damages
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5393761?
The tribunal order states: Harry Shi must pay Liam Andrew Hosking, Thomas Wood, Gabriel Starr Nolan,
How much money was awarded in case 5393761?
Property Damage: $3,100.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5393761?
The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5393761?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13330956-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.