What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5415788 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 5415788?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5415788?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5415788?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13156014-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5415788 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 5415788?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5415788?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5415788?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13156014-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5415788 — Tenancy dispute

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5415788 — net $28.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$28.00
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$28.00

On 17 December 2025, the tenant filed an application seeking refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. The tenant appeared.

The landlord did not appear. Enquires were made with the Registry, who confirmed landlord had been properly served with the notice of hearing, was aware of today’s proceedings, and had signalled an intention to file a cross application. Mr Scott Duncan, Property Manager, was joined to the hearing by telephone and appeared on behalf of the landlord.

The Property Manager confirmed they had not been briefed about today’s hearing, having only started in the role one a week ago. The Tribunal briefly outlined the tenants claim and relevant legislation. The landlord did not seek an adjournment and on that basis the hearing proceeded. 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. Background of the tenancy

The tenancy commenced on 25 October 2024.

The tenant gave notice terminating the tenancy effective 27 November 2025.

Should the bond be refunded to the tenant?

The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlord has a claim against the bond but has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.

Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenant. Other matters

Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse 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 wholly successful and is granted name suppression.

The landlord seeks name suppression. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful nor did the landlord provide any reasons why name suppression should be granted. On that basis the Tribunal declines to order suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5415788 — net $28.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$28.00
Bond	$2,400.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$28.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

Reasons

On 17 December 2025, the tenant filed an application seeking refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. The tenant appeared.
The landlord did not appear. Enquires were made with the Registry, who confirmed landlord had been properly served with the notice of hearing, was aware of today’s proceedings, and had signalled an intention to file a cross application. Mr Scott Duncan, Property Manager, was joined to the hearing by telephone and appeared on behalf of the landlord.
The Property Manager confirmed they had not been briefed about today’s hearing, having only started in the role one a week ago. The Tribunal briefly outlined the tenants claim and relevant legislation. The landlord did not seek an adjournment and on that basis the hearing proceeded. 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. Background of the tenancy
The tenancy commenced on 25 October 2024.
The tenant gave notice terminating the tenancy effective 27 November 2025.

Should the bond be refunded to the tenant?

The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The landlord has a claim against the bond but has not filed a counterclaim with Tenancy Services.
Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenant. Other matters
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse 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 wholly successful and is granted name suppression.
The landlord seeks name suppression. The landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful nor did the landlord provide any reasons why name suppression should be granted. On that basis the Tribunal declines to order suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5415788 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5415788 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the bond be refunded to the tenant?

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the bond be refunded to the tenant?

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions