What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5406168 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 5406168?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $9,142.84 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5406168?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5406168?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12900352-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5406168 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 5406168?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $9,142.84 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5406168?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5406168?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12900352-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

53a Turner Drive, Western Heights, Rotorua 3015 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5406168 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5406168 — net $9,170.84 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 19 December 2025 (less failure to mitigate loss	$9,142.84	Rent arrears to 19 December 2025 (less failure to mitigate loss
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$9,170.84
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$9,170.84

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 Damion-Dean Gribben at 53a Turner Drive, Western Heights, Rotorua 3015 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11:59pm, Sunday 4 January 2026.
Damion-Dean Gribben must pay [The landlord/s] $9,170.84 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 19 December 2025. The tenant did not.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and reimbursement of the filing fee.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The landlord filed their application on 4 December 2025. Rent arrears were $13,000.00 (182 days) on this date. Because rent was more than 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed, the tenancy is terminated.
I have set the termination date as 11:59pm, Sunday 4 January 2026. This is because it is the end of the year and very close to the holiday period. Property management companies and landlords are likely to be on leave over the next couple of weeks. If the tenancy were terminated immediately, it would be very difficult for the tenant to find a new tenancy. Similarly, bailiffs are likely to be on holiday and unavailable to assist the landlord if required.

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

The law

Section 40(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) imposes an obligation on a tenant to pay rent as and when it is due and payable under the tenancy agreement.
Where a tenant fails to pay rent as and when it is due, section 49 RTA requires a landlord to take all reasonable steps to limit the loss arising from the tenant’s breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.
In Huang v Ashworth [2024] NZDC 15726, the District Court discussed a landlord’s duty to mitigate their loss in the context of rent arrears and held: [8] ...[W]here the tenant fails to pay rent owing, there is an obligation on the landlord to mitigate the loss. This can be achieved by not allowing the arrears to continue to accrue, instead ending the tenancy and reletting the premises thereby preventing ongoing loss. ... [11] Of relevance is s 55(1)(a) of the Act, which contains the power for a landlord to end a tenancy where rent is more than 21 days in arrears...
The District Court held that the test of what is required by a landlord to mitigate their loss is a factual one that requires the Court or Tribunal to consider: (a) whether the landlord took all reasonable steps to mitigate its loss; and (b) more particularly, whether it acted reasonably having regard to all the circumstances of the case.
The case of Huang v Ashworth involved a tenancy that began in 2019 and ended on 3 January 2023. Throughout a significant period of the tenancy, the tenant did not pay the full amount of rent and was in arrears. As of March 2022, the tenant was 13 weeks in arrears. Rent arrears continued to increase until the tenancy ended on 3 January 2023. The landlord sought an order for $10,000.00 in rent arrears.
The landlord in Huang v Ashworth had engaged in ongoing discussion with the tenant about payment of the arrears. At different times, arrangements were put in place for the tenant to pay the arrears, but the tenant did not adhere for any significant period of time. The tenant made numerous promises to the landlord to pay the arrears and would sometimes “top up” their rental payment to reduce the arrears, but never for a sustained period of time. The landlord continued to allow the tenant more time to pay the arrears, rather than seeking eviction. The District Court found the landlord’s attempts to resolve the issue of rent arrears without resorting to eviction were reasonable, but only up to a point. At paragraph [18], the District Court held: [18]... Where a tenant repeatedly breaches promises to make up arrears and instead additional arrears are incurred there comes a point where it is being naïve or careless to your own interests to persist giving the tenant more time to pay. For that reason, I do not consider that the full arrears can be claimed. In other words I am satisfied on balance of probabilities that there was some failure to mitigate loss...”
The District Court considered a reduction of one third of the total rent arrears claimed to be a reasonable reflection of the landlord’s failure to mitigate their loss. Analysis
The landlord self-manages this tenancy and has tried to deal with the issue of rent arrears personally for a long time. They have contacted the tenant who has promised to pay their rent and arrears, but never does. The tenant has promised to sell their car, but this has not happened. The landlord has sent the tenant 14-day notices and even a 90-day termination notice however, the rent and arrears remain unpaid, and the tenant is still in possession of the premises.
The landlord has not taken any formal steps in terms of applying to the Tribunal for an order for rent arrears or termination. By the time the landlord filed their application on 4 December 2025, rent arrears were $13,000.00 (182 days).
I find it was reasonable for the landlord to try to deal with the issue of rent arrears personally, but only up to a certain point. By 6 August 2025, rent arrears were $4,500.00 (63 days). The tenant did not pay any rent between 1 May 2025 and 8 July 2025. It should have been obvious to the landlord by 6 August 2025, that the tenant was unlikely to pay their rent or arrears moving forward. An application for termination should have been filed with the Tribunal at this time. By failing to do this, I find the landlord did not act reasonably to mitigate their loss and there needs to be a deduction to the rent arrears to reflect this.
The facts of this case are similar to Huang v Ashworth. Therefore, I adopt the same reduction of one third that was applied in Huang v Ashworth. The total rent arrears up to 19 December 2025 are $13,714.26. One third of this figure is $4,571.42.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is granted for $9,142.84. Filing fee and name suppression
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. For the same reason, I must grant their request for name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5406168 — net $9,170.84 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 19 December 2025 (less failure to mitigate loss	$9,142.84	Rent arrears to 19 December 2025 (less failure to mitigate loss
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$9,170.84
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$9,170.84

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 Damion-Dean Gribben at 53a Turner Drive, Western Heights, Rotorua 3015 is terminated, and possession is granted to [The landlord/s], at 11:59pm, Sunday 4 January 2026.
Damion-Dean Gribben must pay [The landlord/s] $9,170.84 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 19 December 2025. The tenant did not.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears and reimbursement of the filing fee.
As the applicant, the landlord must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The landlord filed their application on 4 December 2025. Rent arrears were $13,000.00 (182 days) on this date. Because rent was more than 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed, the tenancy is terminated.
I have set the termination date as 11:59pm, Sunday 4 January 2026. This is because it is the end of the year and very close to the holiday period. Property management companies and landlords are likely to be on leave over the next couple of weeks. If the tenancy were terminated immediately, it would be very difficult for the tenant to find a new tenancy. Similarly, bailiffs are likely to be on holiday and unavailable to assist the landlord if required.

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

The law

Section 40(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) imposes an obligation on a tenant to pay rent as and when it is due and payable under the tenancy agreement.
Where a tenant fails to pay rent as and when it is due, section 49 RTA requires a landlord to take all reasonable steps to limit the loss arising from the tenant’s breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract.
In Huang v Ashworth [2024] NZDC 15726, the District Court discussed a landlord’s duty to mitigate their loss in the context of rent arrears and held: [8] ...[W]here the tenant fails to pay rent owing, there is an obligation on the landlord to mitigate the loss. This can be achieved by not allowing the arrears to continue to accrue, instead ending the tenancy and reletting the premises thereby preventing ongoing loss. ... [11] Of relevance is s 55(1)(a) of the Act, which contains the power for a landlord to end a tenancy where rent is more than 21 days in arrears...
The District Court held that the test of what is required by a landlord to mitigate their loss is a factual one that requires the Court or Tribunal to consider: (a) whether the landlord took all reasonable steps to mitigate its loss; and (b) more particularly, whether it acted reasonably having regard to all the circumstances of the case.
The case of Huang v Ashworth involved a tenancy that began in 2019 and ended on 3 January 2023. Throughout a significant period of the tenancy, the tenant did not pay the full amount of rent and was in arrears. As of March 2022, the tenant was 13 weeks in arrears. Rent arrears continued to increase until the tenancy ended on 3 January 2023. The landlord sought an order for $10,000.00 in rent arrears.
The landlord in Huang v Ashworth had engaged in ongoing discussion with the tenant about payment of the arrears. At different times, arrangements were put in place for the tenant to pay the arrears, but the tenant did not adhere for any significant period of time. The tenant made numerous promises to the landlord to pay the arrears and would sometimes “top up” their rental payment to reduce the arrears, but never for a sustained period of time. The landlord continued to allow the tenant more time to pay the arrears, rather than seeking eviction. The District Court found the landlord’s attempts to resolve the issue of rent arrears without resorting to eviction were reasonable, but only up to a point. At paragraph [18], the District Court held: [18]... Where a tenant repeatedly breaches promises to make up arrears and instead additional arrears are incurred there comes a point where it is being naïve or careless to your own interests to persist giving the tenant more time to pay. For that reason, I do not consider that the full arrears can be claimed. In other words I am satisfied on balance of probabilities that there was some failure to mitigate loss...”
The District Court considered a reduction of one third of the total rent arrears claimed to be a reasonable reflection of the landlord’s failure to mitigate their loss. Analysis
The landlord self-manages this tenancy and has tried to deal with the issue of rent arrears personally for a long time. They have contacted the tenant who has promised to pay their rent and arrears, but never does. The tenant has promised to sell their car, but this has not happened. The landlord has sent the tenant 14-day notices and even a 90-day termination notice however, the rent and arrears remain unpaid, and the tenant is still in possession of the premises.
The landlord has not taken any formal steps in terms of applying to the Tribunal for an order for rent arrears or termination. By the time the landlord filed their application on 4 December 2025, rent arrears were $13,000.00 (182 days).
I find it was reasonable for the landlord to try to deal with the issue of rent arrears personally, but only up to a certain point. By 6 August 2025, rent arrears were $4,500.00 (63 days). The tenant did not pay any rent between 1 May 2025 and 8 July 2025. It should have been obvious to the landlord by 6 August 2025, that the tenant was unlikely to pay their rent or arrears moving forward. An application for termination should have been filed with the Tribunal at this time. By failing to do this, I find the landlord did not act reasonably to mitigate their loss and there needs to be a deduction to the rent arrears to reflect this.
The facts of this case are similar to Huang v Ashworth. Therefore, I adopt the same reduction of one third that was applied in Huang v Ashworth. The total rent arrears up to 19 December 2025 are $13,714.26. One third of this figure is $4,571.42.
The landlord’s claim for rent arrears is granted for $9,142.84. Filing fee and name suppression
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. For the same reason, I must grant their request for name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5406168 — Rent arrears at 53a Turner Drive, Western Heights, Rotorua 3015

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5406168 — Rent arrears at 53a Turner Drive, Western Heights, Rotorua 3015

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

How much does the tenant owe in rent arrears?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions