How much money was awarded in case 5406535?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5406535?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5406535?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12886202-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5406535?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5406535?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5406535?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12886202-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

16 Hazel Street, Ebdentown, Upper Hutt 5018 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5406535 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5406535 about?

The tribunal order states: Lowe & Co. Property Management Limited As Agents For Colleen And [The tenant/s] landlord/s] is granted possession of the premises at 16 Hazel Street,

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5406535 — net $28.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$28.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$28.00

On 4 December 2025, the landlord filed an application seeking possession of the property and reimbursement of the filing fee.

The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. Ms Catherine Casey-White, Property Manager, and Ms Melinda Malcolm, Branch Manager, appeared for the landlord.

The tenant did not appear, and unsuccessful attempts were made to join them to the hearing by telephone. The Tribunal was satisfied the tenant was properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in their absence. Relevant legal considerations

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).

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.

This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.

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.

Should a possession order be made?

The tenancy commenced on 2 December 2024 with the fixed term ending on 2 December 2025.

On 15 August 2025 management of the property transferred to Lowe & Co. Property Management Limited.

On 1 September 2025 the Property Manager, in the company of the tenant, completed a routine property inspection.

On 8 October 2025, in accordance with section 60A of the Act, the landlord gave the tenant written notice of their intention not to continue with the tenancy and required possession of the property at the end of the fixed term.

The notice was served by e-mail during the effective period – the period that starts on the 90 th day before the date on which the tenancy expires and ends on the 21 st day before that date.

On 3 December 2025, the landlord attempted to complete an exit inspection and discovered the tenant remained in possession of the property despite the tenancy being terminated.

The tenancy ended on 2 December 2025, which is less than 90 days ago. The requirements of section 64(1) of the Act are satisfied. Possession is granted to the landlord at midnight on Monday 22 December 2025. Costs

Because Lowe & Co. Property Management Limited As Agents For Colleen And [The tenant/s] landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Despite being wholly successful the landlord did not seek name suppression.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5406535 — net $28.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$28.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$28.00

Order

Lowe & Co. Property Management Limited As Agents For Colleen And [The tenant/s] landlord/s] is granted possession of the premises at 16 Hazel Street, Ebdentown, Upper Hutt 5018 at midnight on Monday 22 December 2025.

Reasons

On 4 December 2025, the landlord filed an application seeking possession of the property and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. Ms Catherine Casey-White, Property Manager, and Ms Melinda Malcolm, Branch Manager, appeared for the landlord.
The tenant did not appear, and unsuccessful attempts were made to join them to the hearing by telephone. The Tribunal was satisfied the tenant was properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in their absence. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
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.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
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.

Should a possession order be made?

The tenancy commenced on 2 December 2024 with the fixed term ending on 2 December 2025.
On 15 August 2025 management of the property transferred to Lowe & Co. Property Management Limited.
On 1 September 2025 the Property Manager, in the company of the tenant, completed a routine property inspection.
On 8 October 2025, in accordance with section 60A of the Act, the landlord gave the tenant written notice of their intention not to continue with the tenancy and required possession of the property at the end of the fixed term.
The notice was served by e-mail during the effective period – the period that starts on the 90 th day before the date on which the tenancy expires and ends on the 21 st day before that date.
On 3 December 2025, the landlord attempted to complete an exit inspection and discovered the tenant remained in possession of the property despite the tenancy being terminated.
The tenancy ended on 2 December 2025, which is less than 90 days ago. The requirements of section 64(1) of the Act are satisfied. Possession is granted to the landlord at midnight on Monday 22 December 2025. Costs
Because Lowe & Co. Property Management Limited As Agents For Colleen And [The tenant/s] landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
Despite being wholly successful the landlord did not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5406535 — Tenancy dispute at 16 Hazel Street, Ebdentown, Upper Hutt 5018

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5406535 — Tenancy dispute at 16 Hazel Street, Ebdentown, Upper Hutt 5018

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should a possession order be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should a possession order be made?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.