What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5415173 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 5415173?

Early Termination Costs: $545.17 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5415173?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5415173?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13165579-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5415173 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 5415173?

Early Termination Costs: $545.17 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5415173?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5415173?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13165579-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5415173 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5415173. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Early termination costs	$545.17		Early termination costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5415173. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Early termination costs	$545.17		Early termination costs
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00		Filing fee reimbursement

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlords and tenants name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $573.17 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,426.83 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately. Calculated as shown in the table below:

All other claims are dismissed.

Reasons

On 26 November 2025, the tenant filed an application with the Tribunal seeking a reduction of the fixed term of their tenancy and reimbursement of the filing fee.
On 16 December 2025, the landlord filed a cross application seeking compensation for re-letting costs, refund of the bond, compensation for Tribunal preparation costs, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
At the hearing, the landlord’s claim was amended to include compensation for lawn remediation costs.
The hearing proceeded by way of telephone conference. [Property Manager], Property Manager, appeared on behalf of the landlord. [Tenant] appeared for the tenants. 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. History of the tenancy
The tenancy commenced on 21 April 2025 with the fixed term due to end on 21 April 2026.
On 19 November 2025, the tenants asked to break their fixed term tenancy early due to a change in their circumstances. The parties were unable to agree the terms of a break lease, in particular the fees and costs sought by the landlord. However, the landlord began advertising and showing the property to prospective tenants with the tenants consent.
The tenant vacated the property on 9 January 2026.
New tenants moved into the property on 14 January 2026.

Should the fixed term be reduced?

The tenants have applied for reduction of the fixed-term tenancy due to end on 21 April 2026.
Parties enter into a fixed term tenancy for security. For tenants this is security of tenure; they can be sure they can have a home for at least the agreed term. For landlords it is security of income; they can rely on a set amount of income from their investment.
If a tenant wishes to default on that contract, and the landlord accepts the repudiation, then the tenancy ends on the terms agreed. In such a situation of surrender the landlord can stipulate the terms of early surrender, provided they are reasonable. Such reasonable terms can be to ensure the aggrieved party (here, the landlord) be placed in the same position as they would have been in, but for the breach of the tenancy agreement.
If the parties cannot agree to end the tenancy, it is open to that party to apply to the Tribunal to reduce the term pursuant to section 66(1) of the Act.
A fixed-term contract will be applied strictly, and it is only in limited circumstances, that a Court or Tribunal would interfere with it. For residential tenancies, one of these circumstances is found in section 66 of the Act, which allows for the reduction of fixed term tenancy agreements.
There is a high threshold that needs to be met before the Tribunal will reduce the term. In particular the applicant will need to establish that: a. there has been a change in their circumstances; and b. that change was unforeseen; and c. that unforeseen change will result in severe hardship to the applicant if the tenancy is not ended; and d. the severe hardship the applicant would suffer if the term was not reduced exceeds the hardship the other party would suffer if the term was reduced.
“Unforeseen” means unexpected or without warning. An unforeseen change in circumstances has in previous cases included 1 : a. An unexpected transfer of the tenant’s employment to another city just before the tenancy commenced; b. One of four tenants developing a sudden and serious illness leaving the property; 1 Usher & Usher v Bravo Property Management [2024] NZTT 4892686 at [13] c. Suicide of a co-tenant; d. Visits from unknown persons enquiring about drugs and three burglaries at the premises; e. A former partner moving nearby in breach of a protection order; f. A partner leaving the relationship and the tenancy property; g. Detection of a former methamphetamine laboratory; h. Relocation to another city for cancer treatment; i. In earthquake cases, services cut to the tenancy property; and j. Substantial damage to the property.
The tenants states: a. In October 2025 one of the tenant’s employer unilaterally and unexpectedly changed the conditions of their employment contract. The employer withdrew a travel benefit meaning they would no longer pay for the tenants return flights and accommodation from New Zealand to Australia where they worked as an electrician in the mining industry. b. The tenant felt unable to properly challenge their employers decision as they were employed on a casual contract. c. This change to the tenant’s employment conditions caused significant financial hardship for the family. The tenants had already taken on a $20,000.00 personal loan to move from Australia to New Zealand. The tenants are a single income family. Having to meet the tenants travel costs to fly in and fly out for work would absorb all of the families income. d. The tenants also said that as a young family it was unreasonable to expect them to live apart for the remaining six months of the tenancy agreement as this would in effect, cause emotional hardship. e. As a result of these factors the family said they could not afford to remain in New Zealand and as a result had to return to Australia to live. The tenants asked for their fixed term tenancy to be reduced to 9 January 2026, the day they vacated the property.
The landlord stated that while sympathetic to the tenant’s situation they were unable to agree to early termination of the tenancy as the parties could not agree on reasonable break lease costs.
The landlord told the Tribunal they had agreed to end the tenant’s fixed term early on the following terms: a. The tenants remain liable for rent until a new tenant takes over the lease. b. The tenants paid the advertising costs. c. The tenants paid the background and credit check fees. d. The tenants pay any other costs associated with reletting the property.
The landlord stated that at no point prior to signing the tenancy agreement were they made aware of the fact the tenant was only employed on a casual contract. Had this information been known it could have altered their decision to rent to the tenants.
The landlord wants the tenant to pay rent until 13 January 2026, so they are not financially disadvantaged by the tenants leaving the fixed term early. The landlord was able to secure new tenants for the property, who moved in on 14 January 2026. Analysis and decision
The tenant seeks a reduction of their fixed term tenancy arguing: a. their employers unilateral decision to change their travel benefit entitlement under their casual employment contract was unforeseeable; b. This change resulted in significant financial hardship; and c. It meant their family needed to break their fixed term lease early in order to relocate back to Australia for work.
The parties could not agree terms of the break lease. However, the parties did agree to: a. The landlord readvertising the property thereby securing a new tenant who moved into the premises on 14 January 2026; and b. The tenants paying the landlord’s advertising fee and new tenant credit checks.
Having considered the facts the Tribunal finds that while there has been a change in the tenant’s circumstance that change was not unforeseeable. That is because the tenant is employed on a casual employment contract. The nature of casual employment contracts is defined by the absence of fixed or guaranteed work, and legal entitlements and benefits often change based on the reality of the working relationship, the length of service, statutory changes, and market changes. It is clearly foreseeable that the tenant’s employer could make any unilateral changes to their employment under the terms of their casual employment contract. The tenants signed a fixed term tenancy knowing they were employed on a casual contract and the nature of that contract meant it could be changed or varied.
Section 66 of the Act is clear in requiring the Tribunal to establish an unforeseen change in circumstances before the respective hardships are weighed. While the Tribunal empathises with the parties, an unforeseen change in the tenant’s circumstances has not been established and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to end the tenancy. This claim must be dismissed. Landlord’s claims Are the tenant’s liable to pay the landlord’s reletting costs?
The landlord seeks reletting costs totalling $545.17 which included two credit checks for the new tenants, travel time and milage costs, viewing costs and administration fees. An invoice in the amount claimed was provided.
The Tenant disputes the amount claims stating they are unreasonable, inflated and would have been incurred at the end of the tenancy. The tenant said they had already agreed to pay the cost of the credit checks but had not been invoiced by the landlord. Analysis and decision
Section 50(1)(d) of the Act states that tenancies may be terminated where the tenant surrenders the tenancy, or delivers up vacant possession of the premises, to the landlord with the landlord’s written consent.
Section 44A(1) of the Act states that landlords are entitled to recover from the tenant any expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord in respect of the termination of the tenancy.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the parties intended to terminate the tenancy prior to the end of the fixed term. The landlord set out the terms of surrender, but the parties could not agree on the break lease costs.
Having heard from the parties and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds that the end of tenancy costs have been reasonably incurred by the landlord which the tenants are liable to pay. The amount claimed is ordered

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the grass?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 49B(8), 66K(2) and 66L of the Act.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income- related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) of the Act.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) of the Act. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) of the Act.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) of the Act.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord seeks compensation for damage to the grass caused by the tenant’s dog kennel totalling $100.00. No invoice for the amount claimed was provided.
The landlord provided pre-tenancy photographs showing the condition of the grass at the commencement of the tenancy. The photographs show the lawn to be green and evenly covered. The landlord provided end of tenancy photographs taken on 12 January 2026 showing an area of lawn to be brown and patchy.
The tenant accepted their dog kennel damaged the grass but disputes the amount claimed. The tenants stated that prior to the end of the tenancy they removed their dog kennel and replaced the damaged lawn with ready lawn. The Tribunal was provided with photographs proving the lawn had been patched with ready lawn and that the lawn was green and mostly evenly covered.
The tenant said that while they were in the property they watered the lawn to help it grow over the summer months. However, this stopped when they moved out and, given the summer weather, the lawn browned off. Analysis and decision
The Tribunal is able to make a proper before and after comparison of the condition of the lawn at the beginning and end of the tenancy. The lawn was even in coverage and green at the commencement of the tenancy. Prior to the end of the tenancy the tenants removed their dog kennel and remediated the damaged lawn with ready lawn. The Tribunal is satisfied the tenants took all reasonable steps to repair the damage and return the lawn to the landlord in a similar condition as at the beginning of the tenancy.
The Tribunal accepts that when the end of tenancy inspection was completed the ready lawn had browned off. It is not clear from the photographs if the lawn was dead. The Tribunal is not satisfied the landlord has proved the loss claimed as no invoice for lawn remediation costs was provided. On that basis the landlord’s claim for compensation is dismissed. Is the tenant liable to pay the landlord’s tribunal preparation fees?
The landlord seeks Tribunal preparation costs totalling $86.25. The landlord stated that these are the reasonable costs they have incurred after earlier warning the tenants these costs would be sought if the matter proceeded to hearing.
Costs are not routinely awarded to parties to compensate for their time and costs associated with appearing before the Tenancy Tribunal. It is usual for parties to bear their own expenses. The claim is dismissed. Other matters
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
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 the name or identifying particulars 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 substantially successful and is granted name suppression.
The landlord has been substantially successful and is granted name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5415173 — Property damage

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5415173 — Property damage

At a glance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the fixed term be reduced?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the grass?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

Should the fixed term be reduced?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the grass?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions