Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5406851 — Exemplary damages at 19 Garreg Road, Fendalton, Christchurch 8052
Published 21 May 2026 · Application 5406851
Tenant favoured
- Exemplary damages
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Tenant favoured
From published order
Location
Christchurch
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
R Armstrong
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $3,028.00
- Total balance for Landlord to pay Tenant
- $3,028.00
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exemplary damages | $3,000.00 | Exemplary damages | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $3,028.00 | ||
| Total payable by Landlord to Tenant | $3,028.00 |
Claims and awards for application 5406851 — net $3,028.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Exemplary damages
- Amount
- $3,000.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Tenant $3,028.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant
Tenant $3,028.00
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Prestige Property Management Limited must pay Geraldine Sarah Lonergan $3,028.00 immediately calculated as shown in the table below.
Reasons
- The hearing was conducted by video conference. Mrs Lonergan attended with her husband Morgan Lonergan. Ms Bradford attended for Prestige Property Management Limited (Prestige). I will refer to Mr and Mrs Lonergan as the tenants although only Mrs Lonergan is named on the tenancy agreement.
- The tenants have claimed compensation for what they claim was an unlawful termination notice served by Prestige. Prestige denies that it was unlawful. Background
- This tenancy began on 14 May 2025. The tenancy agreement names Prestige as the agent for the landlord S (Simon) Hunter. The tenancy is periodic. I will refer to Mr Hunter as the owner.
- The premises are a substantial home in Fendalton. The owner bought it in September 2024 and there was one tenancy before this one.
- The tenants said that they wanted a one-year fixed term tenancy and that is what they understood they had. It was only when they looked closely at the agreement that they realised it was a periodic tenancy. There was a disagreement between the parties over what was discussed at the time, but it is unnecessary to go into that. The evidence does not prove that the tenants were misled as to the term of the tenancy.
- On 28 July 2025, Prestige sent an email to the tenants stating that the owners had had a “change of circumstances” and that they needed to move into the premises as soon as possible. The email gave the tenants notice that tenancy would end on 10 September, 44 days later.
- The tenants accepted the notice and started looking for another rental. They found one and they gave Prestige a 21-day termination notice ending on 21 August.
- During the hearing I pointed out that knowingly serving an unlawful termination notice is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal can order payment of exemplary damages and asked if the tenant wanted to amend her claim by including a claim for exemplary damages. She confirmed that she did, and I then asked Ms Bradford is she had any objection to the amendment.
- Ms Bradford said that she opposed it because the claim should have been included in the application and she did not want to burden the owner with a potential liability when he was not aware of it.
- I have allowed the amendment because, as explained below, this order has been made against Prestige, not the owner. There has been no significant injustice in allowing the amendment. The application claimed substantial compensation and Prestige would have been aware that what the tenants’ have alleged, if proved, constituted an unlawful act. The tenants were obviously not aware of that. Relevant Law
- Section 51 of the residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) allows a landlord to terminate a periodic tenancy by giving 42 days notice if the owner 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.
- If, after giving the notice, the owner or the owner’s family does not occupy the premises within 90 days for at least 90 days, it does not necessarily follow that the notice was unlawful. That is determined by whether the owner’s intentions to do so were genuine at the time they served the notice.
- Under Section 60AA of the Act 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.
- Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00.
- 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. Evidence and Discussion
- The tenants said that the owner obtained consent to renovate the premises in April 2025 and that work started a few days after they moved out. Ms Bradford said that the owner has a construction business and so he is able get things moving very quickly.
- Prestige produced a statement from the owner. It is unsigned but I have no reason to think that it is not his statement. He says in it that he had planned to renovate the premises but first he and his family intended to move into it and live in it for a time while their own home was renovated. They would then move back into their home while the premises were renovated. They would then move into the premises to live there.
- It goes on to say that when they moved into the premises at the end of August, the owner’s wife hated the place. She was used to a more modern home. After two nights they moved back to their home and the work on the premises began.
- It also says that they didn’t know what their intentions were when the tenancy began and that if they had known, they would have informed Prestige and perhaps they would have selected different tenants. I infer that the different tenants would have been people who would have been happy with a shorter tenancy.
- The premises were built in the 1990s and they present as a spacious attractive family home. The owner’s statement says that his wife did not view the premises before they bought. She had not been inside them; she had only seen photographs of them.
- I find the owner’s explanation difficult to accept for several reasons.
- First, it strikes me as unlikely that the owner’s wife would not view the premises before buying them for her family home. Ms Bradford pointed out that the intention was to renovate it and so a viewing was not necessary. Even so, the owner’s own home is in Fendalton, and it is hard to imagine that someone would be willing to commit to a buying and living in a family home without seeing it when it is but a short walk or car ride away.
- Second, viewing the photographs of the premises would have provided a clear impression of the style of the premises and it is difficult to accept that the owner’s wife could have found them so unlike they appeared in the photographs that she could not tolerate living there.
- Third, the owner and his family were, apparently, willing to move into the premises intending to live there without allowing time to prepare the premises to their liking or even view the premises. The speed of the move was obviously not forced on them because they promptly moved back into their own home.
- Fourth, despite the construction company point made by Ms Bradford, the speed with which the work on the premises started is striking. Only a few days after the owner and his family had moved into the premises intending to live there for several months at least, work had begun on the premises.
- I also note that Prestige’s email giving notice states that the owner had a change of circumstances and needed to move into the premises as soon as possible. There is no evidence of a change of circumstances at the time of the notice. Ms Bradford said that the expression she used is a standard one. The fact remains that there was no change and the evidence shows that there was no need for the owner to move into the premises quickly.
- In my view, it is likely that when the owner instructed Prestige to serve the termination notice, he intended the work on the premises to begin shortly after the tenant’s moved out. It follows that he and his family did not intend to occupy the premises within 90 days of the termination date as their principal place of residence for at least 90 days.
- It follows that the owner served a termination notice knowing that he was not entitled to do so. That is an unlawful act. The owner could have served a 90-day termination notice without giving any reason. I can only assume that he chose to serve a 42-day notice because he was in a hurry to start the renovation work.
- The maximum penalty for serving a termination notice knowing it to be unlawful is one of the highest for an unlawful act. No doubt that is because it wrongly denies the tenant their right to remain living in the premises for the time that the law allows. In other words, it undermines the limited security of tenure that tenants have under the law. It also subverts the protections that the law affords to tenants. Plainly that is not in the public interest and certainly not in the tenant’s interest.
- In this case it gave the tenants less notice than they were entitled to and therefore less time to make alternative living arrangements. In these circumstances an award of exemplary damages is required.
- As I have said, the consequence of the unlawful notice is that the tenants were given 42 days to vacate the premises instead of the 90 days that they entitled to. Their claim for compensation appears to be based on the counterfactual scenario that they could have remained in the premises until the home they were building for themselves was completed. That is incorrect. It denied them another 48 days notice, just under seven weeks. Fortunately, they were able to find suitable alternative accommodation within the 42 days.
- The case it therefore not at the high end of the scale, but a significant award is still warranted. I have awarded $3,000. I make no separate award of compensation because I have taken into consideration the effect on the tenants.
- I have made this award against Prestige although they are the agent. This has been done at their request. The alternative would have been to add the owner to the application and adjourn the hearing. That would have been undesirable, and Prestige opposed it. I can make the award against Prestige because where appropriate, an agent can be treated as the landlord. This is an appropriate case to do so.
- The tenants have succeeded and so I have awarded the filing fee.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s51, s60AA
Key findings
- Dispute theme: exemplary damages
Property management
- PRESTIGE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LIMITED (respondent)
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5406851?
The tribunal order states: Prestige Property Management Limited must pay Geraldine Sarah Lonergan
How much money was awarded in case 5406851?
Property Damage: $3,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5406851?
The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5406851?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13597237-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.