What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5405237 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 5405237?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5405237?

The primary dispute was Harassment. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5405237?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13360151-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5405237 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 5405237?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5405237?

The primary dispute was Harassment. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5405237?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13360151-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5405237 — Harassment

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 application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 27 March 2026. The landlord was represented by Quenton Donald.
The tenanted premises are a 2-bedroom apartment in an apartment complex.
The tenancy commenced on 11 February 2023 and ended on 11 February 2026. At all times relevant to this enquiry, the tenant had a flatmate Chireen.
On the 3 December 2025, the tenant filed his claim with the Tribunal, he claims: a. That his quiet enjoyment of the premises has been breached. b. He seeks exemplary damages for the breach. c. The tenant wishes to be reimbursed for his filing fee. d. Other claims by the tenant were dismissed by the Tribunal in an earlier hearing dated 20 February 2026, on the grounds that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear them. The burden of proof
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof. In this case the burden of proof falls on the tenant.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.” Relevant legal principles – compensation and exemplary damages
The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach. • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.
Exemplary damages are different. They 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, with intent, committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must consider the factors set out in section 109 (3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Those factors are: • The intention of the person • The effect of the unlawful act • The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and • The public interest.
Claims for exemplary damages must be filed within 12 months of the incident complained of. DECISIONS AND REASONS.
Section 38 RTA provides that; 38Quiet Enjoyment (1) The tenant shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or any person claiming by, through, or under the landlord or having superior title to that of the landlord. (2) The landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant. (3) Contravention of subsection (2) of this section in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant is hereby declared to be an awful act.
The tenant says that his flatmate Chireen was employed by the landlord as a receptionist. The landlord would be responsible for any proven breaches of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment by Chireen in her capacity as an employee, but not in her capacity as a flatmate, as the Tribunal simply does not have jurisdiction to consider such a claim.
The tenant says that soon after the commencement of the tenancy, Chireen asked if her boyfriend could also move in. The tenant did not agree. The tenant says that Chireen gave her boyfriend a key to the apartment. Chireen told him that she had copied a key to the apartment whist working in reception for the landlord. The tenant says that he saw the boyfriend in the apartment. The boyfriend did not cause any damage or remove items. The tenant’s sole concern was that the boyfriend was present against his wishes.
The incident referred to occurred in 2023 and as a result, exemplary damages could not be awarded, even of the tenant were successful in his claim.
The tenant says that a similar incident occurred in August 2025. The tenant says that Chireen told him that her and her boyfriend had entered the tenant’s bedroom whilst he was absent. The tenant confirmed that nothing was missing or damaged from his in his bedroom. The tenant says that the key used to enter the apartment was the previously copied key.
The landlord confirmed that for some of the term of the tenancy Chireen was employed as a receptionist. He said that it operated 2 key system at the apartment complex. One key is used to gain access to the apartment complex. It would be possible for a receptionist to copy that key. The second key is to the individual apartments. The landlord said that this second key could not simply be copied by a receptionist. Copying that key requires written approval from management. The key is then cut off site by a contractor who provides an invoice for the copying of that key. A master key is also held at reception. That key is kept in a safe. Receptionists do not have the code for entry to the safe. The landlord’s evidence is that it would not have been possible for Chireen to copy an apartment key.
The burden of proof in this matter is on the tenant. Having considered the evidence provided and the evidence heard from the parties, the Tribunal is not persuaded that it is more likely than not that Chireen has copied apartment keys and given them to her friends. it would at least theoretically have been possible for Chireen to have given her friends her key to gain entrance to the apartment.
The applications are dismissed.
The tenant not having been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing no order is made for reimbursement of the filing fee.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing. The tenant’s application for name suppression is dismissed. The landlord has been substantially successful in this hearing. Suppression of the landlord’s name and details is ordered.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 27 March 2026. The landlord was represented by Quenton Donald.

The tenanted premises are a 2-bedroom apartment in an apartment complex.

The tenancy commenced on 11 February 2023 and ended on 11 February 2026. At all times relevant to this enquiry, the tenant had a flatmate Chireen.

On the 3 December 2025, the tenant filed his claim with the Tribunal, he claims: a. That his quiet enjoyment of the premises has been breached. b. He seeks exemplary damages for the breach. c. The tenant wishes to be reimbursed for his filing fee. d. Other claims by the tenant were dismissed by the Tribunal in an earlier hearing dated 20 February 2026, on the grounds that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear them. The burden of proof

A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof. In this case the burden of proof falls on the tenant.

The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.” Relevant legal principles – compensation and exemplary damages

The Tribunal may award compensation to a tenant for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the landlord of their statutory responsibilities. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.

In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach. • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party.

Exemplary damages are different. They 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, with intent, committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must consider the factors set out in section 109 (3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Those factors are: • The intention of the person • The effect of the unlawful act • The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and • The public interest.

Claims for exemplary damages must be filed within 12 months of the incident complained of. DECISIONS AND REASONS.

Section 38 RTA provides that; 38Quiet Enjoyment (1) The tenant shall be entitled to have quiet enjoyment of the premises without interruption by the landlord or any person claiming by, through, or under the landlord or having superior title to that of the landlord. (2) The landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant. (3) Contravention of subsection (2) of this section in circumstances that amount to harassment of the tenant is hereby declared to be an awful act.

The tenant says that his flatmate Chireen was employed by the landlord as a receptionist. The landlord would be responsible for any proven breaches of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment by Chireen in her capacity as an employee, but not in her capacity as a flatmate, as the Tribunal simply does not have jurisdiction to consider such a claim.

The tenant says that soon after the commencement of the tenancy, Chireen asked if her boyfriend could also move in. The tenant did not agree. The tenant says that Chireen gave her boyfriend a key to the apartment. Chireen told him that she had copied a key to the apartment whist working in reception for the landlord. The tenant says that he saw the boyfriend in the apartment. The boyfriend did not cause any damage or remove items. The tenant’s sole concern was that the boyfriend was present against his wishes.

The incident referred to occurred in 2023 and as a result, exemplary damages could not be awarded, even of the tenant were successful in his claim.

The tenant says that a similar incident occurred in August 2025. The tenant says that Chireen told him that her and her boyfriend had entered the tenant’s bedroom whilst he was absent. The tenant confirmed that nothing was missing or damaged from his in his bedroom. The tenant says that the key used to enter the apartment was the previously copied key.

The landlord confirmed that for some of the term of the tenancy Chireen was employed as a receptionist. He said that it operated 2 key system at the apartment complex. One key is used to gain access to the apartment complex. It would be possible for a receptionist to copy that key. The second key is to the individual apartments. The landlord said that this second key could not simply be copied by a receptionist. Copying that key requires written approval from management. The key is then cut off site by a contractor who provides an invoice for the copying of that key. A master key is also held at reception. That key is kept in a safe. Receptionists do not have the code for entry to the safe. The landlord’s evidence is that it would not have been possible for Chireen to copy an apartment key.

The burden of proof in this matter is on the tenant. Having considered the evidence provided and the evidence heard from the parties, the Tribunal is not persuaded that it is more likely than not that Chireen has copied apartment keys and given them to her friends. it would at least theoretically have been possible for Chireen to have given her friends her key to gain entrance to the apartment.

The applications are dismissed.

The tenant not having been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing no order is made for reimbursement of the filing fee.

Both parties applied for name suppression. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing. The tenant’s application for name suppression is dismissed. The landlord has been substantially successful in this hearing. Suppression of the landlord’s name and details is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5405237 — Harassment

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5405237 — Harassment

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions