How much money was awarded in case 5401428?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5401428?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5401428?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13237601-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5401428?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5401428?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5401428?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13237601-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5401428 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5401428 about?

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

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the names and identifying details of the landlord, tenant, and applicant

The landlord’s application for possession and to reduce the fixed term is dismissed.

Applicant 1’s application for possession is dismissed

Reasons

The hearing of this matter was conducted by video on Monday 26 January 2026 and 19 February 2026. All parties appeared at the hearing on 19 February 2026.

The relevant facts may be briefly summarised. The landlord and the tenant entered into a fixed-term tenancy commencing on 4 August 2025. On 27 November 2025, the landlord sold the property at auction to Applicant 1. The sale and purchase agreement provided that, upon settlement, Applicant 1 was to have vacant possession.

The tenant continues to occupy the premises pursuant to the fixed-term tenancy. As the landlord is unable to terminate the fixed term by notice, settlement of the sale has not occurred. Hearing 26 January 2026

Initially, the Tribunal approached the matter on the basis that section 58 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (Act) applied, on the understanding that Applicant 1 was a person entitled to possession from 27 November 2025 and was therefore entitled to treat the tenancy as periodic and give notice. Although the Tribunal reserved its decision, it indicated that this appeared to be the position.

However, upon further consideration of the relevant law, the Tribunal reconsidered that provisional view.

Section 58 of the Act applies only where a mortgagee or other person becomes entitled, as against the landlord, to possession of the premises. The phrase “entitled to possession” refers to a present legal entitlement to take possession, not a future or conditional right.

Although the sale and purchase agreement require the landlord to provide vacant possession on settlement, settlement has not occurred. Until settlement, Applicant 1 has only a contractual right against the landlord to require vacant possession to be provided and does not have a legal entitlement to possession for the purposes of section 58 of the Act.

Section 58 was therefore not engaged. Applicant 1 was not entitled to treat the tenancy as periodic and was not entitled to serve notice terminating the tenancy.

Accordingly, the landlord remained the landlord. The fixed-term tenancy continued, and neither the landlord nor Applicant 1 was entitled to terminate the tenancy by notice.

The Tribunal concluded that the landlord’s application was more properly characterised as an application to reduce the term of the fixed-term tenancy under section 66 of the Act.

Although section 66 appeared to be a ground on which the landlord’s application had been made, it had not been discussed during the hearing.

The parties are self-represented. In the circumstances, the matter could not be determined without affording the parties an opportunity to address the requirements of section 66.

The hearing was therefore adjourned and set down for a video hearing before me on 19 February 2026.

The Tribunal directed that, if the landlord intended to pursue an application to reduce the term of the tenancy under section 66, any evidence they wished to rely upon should be provided to the tenant and to the Tribunal. Hearing 19 February 2026

The landlord provided an email from their bank confirming that they had defaulted on a home loan, that approximately $63.000.00 was outstanding, with interest accruing at 7.84 %. This evidence had not been provided to the tenant prior to the hearing.

In addition, the landlord stated that they are also accruing daily penalty interest for delayed settlement under the sale and purchase agreement. This was confirmed by Applicant 1, although no actual payments have been made.

There was no evidence that the landlord had sought legal advice regarding their position.

The landlord stated that they had purchased the property in 2013. At that time, they had a successful multi-million-dollar business and owned twelve investment properties, along with a family home shared with the co landlord.

The landlord stated that their business failed, that the bank had called in the loans, and that a majority of the investment properties were sold by the bank. This property was the last remaining investment property.

The landlord stated that they wished to control the disposal of the property rather than have it sold by the bank at a mortgagee sale for significantly less than market value. They stated that, if able to settle with Applicant 1, they would be in a position to reduce their debt and potentially safe their family home.

The co landlord confirmed the financial position and stated that the stress had been significant, resulting in a relationship breakdown and proceedings before the Family Court.

The tenant responded to the landlord’s claim at the hearing and provided a written response. The tenant stated the landlord had told them, at the time of entering into the fixed term, that they were in financial difficulty but that the property was secure from creditors. They stated that had this not been the case they would not have entered the agreement.

The tenant stated that there was no documentary evidence confirming when the landlord’s financial difficulties had materially changed. They stated that the landlord’s hardship was self-inflicted and foreseeable, particularly as the landlord had entered into a sale and purchase agreement neglecting to disclose that the property was tenanted.

They stated that the situation had caused stress and uncertainty. They had children attending local schools who would be forced to move. They stated they would lose their bond, which had not been lodged by the landlord, who was not in a position to refund it. They confirmed that they had paid rent up until 04 March 2026.

The tenant acknowledged that, had settlement proceeded in November 2025, Applicant 1 would be entitled to issue 90 or 42 days’ notice, likely the latter. They stated they were content for the sale and purchase agreement between the landlord and Applicant 1 to fail and for the property be sold at a mortgagee sale, acknowledging that the bank or future purchaser would likely also issue notice.

The landlord denies telling the tenant that the property was secure. They stated they had informed the tenant that they may need to sell the property and that the tenant was aware of their financial situation, which had significantly worsened after entering into the tenancy agreement. Law

Section 66(1) of the Act states: 66 Reduction of fixed-term tenancy 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 applicant's 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 tenancy would suffer if the term were reduced.

Before the Tribunal may reduce a fixed-term tenancy, the landlord must establish on the balance of probabilities that: (a) there has been a change in circumstances; (b) the change was unforeseen; (c) the unforeseen change will result in severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and (d) the severe hardship the landlord would suffer if the term were not reduced outweighs the hardship the tenant would suffer if the term were reduced.

In the case of Bond v Tang [2009] RTHNZ 34, the owner of a property found themselves in financial difficulty and needed to raise funds to satisfy creditors. The owner/seller sold the property to a purchaser with a term in the sale and purchase agreement that required the seller to enter into a fixed-term tenancy for one year with the purchaser. Upon settlement, the seller entered into a fixed-term tenancy with the purchaser, creating a landlord/tenant relationship. The tenant’s financial position worsened, and they made an application under section 66 of the Act to reduce the fixed term.

The fact that the tenant’s financial position had worsened was not in dispute. The issue was whether this was an unforeseen change in circumstances.

At paragraph [18] the Tribunal stated: The term “unforeseen” is a legal term defined by reference to the reverse (“foreseeability”) in cases relating to negligence (in determining whether a duty of care is owed and what damages are reasonably foreseeable) and in cases assessing damages for breach of contract (also in assessing the remoteness of damage). In both contexts, there is a body of case law which has established that: (a) foreseeability must be assessed objectively through the eyes of a reasonable person who has taken all reasonable steps to inform himself of the circumstances; (b) an outcome is foreseeable in legal terms if it is “liable to result”, “not unlikely”, “quite likely”, a “real danger”, a “serious possibility” or a “real risk”; (c) The term “unforeseen” has few if any direct dictionary definitions, but by thesaurus is aligned with such concepts as “unexpected” and “without warning”. In a legal context, it must also be taken as the reverse of what is “foreseen”, thus being “not liable to result”, “unlikely”, “not a real danger”, “not a serious possibility” or “not a real risk”.

The Tribunal found that while the tenant’s financial circumstances had changed after the agreement had been entered, that given the circumstances behind the initial sale and entering the tenancy agreement with the purchaser, that while serious, the change had not been unforeseen

Section 66(2) provides that, if the Tribunal reduces the term of the tenancy, it may order the applicant to pay reasonable compensation to the other party for any loss or damage resulting from the reduction of the term.

The assessment and weighing of relative hardship is a question of fact to be determined objectively in each case. Analysis and decision

In reaching my decision I have considered all evidence placed before the Tribunal, even if I do not specifically refer to it.

I am satisfied that, at the time the landlord entered into the two-year fixed term tenancy, they knew that they were in financial difficulty. On the landlord’s own evidence, they had explained to the tenant that they wished to keep their options open.

The facts in this case are similar to those in Bond v Tang. While I accept that the landlord’s financial difficulties may have worsened, the landlord’s change in circumstances stems from a pre-existing financial situation. A sale of property to avoid mortgagee action is foreseeable where existing financial difficulties are already present. This is not necessarily an unforeseen change in personal circumstances for the purposes of section 66 of the Act.

The application to reduce the fixed term for an unforeseen change in circumstances is dismissed.

As the landlord has failed to establish the second limb of the test, the Tribunal is not required to deal with the issue of respective hardships.

I acknowledge that the landlord has offered the tenant financial assistance and help finding alternative accommodation, but that the tenant has declined the offer. However, in this case the statutory test to reduce a fixed term has not been met. Under the current tenancy agreement, the tenant is obliged to pay rent, and any outgoings required such as water and wastewater charges.

Applicant 1 is not a landlord as defined in section 2 of the Act. They have no standing in these matters and their claim for possession is dismissed. Name suppression

Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that their name or identifying particulars of that party not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.

The tenant has been wholly 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.

Due to Applicant 1’s status as a non-party, I order suppression of their name. Having heard from the landlords, I accept that this matter has caused them significant anxiety and stress. On this basis, I am satisfied that there are appropriate grounds to depart from the principle of open justice and to order suppression of the landlords’ names.

Order