What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5421230 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5421230?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5421230?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5421230?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13415888-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5421230 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5421230?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5421230?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5421230?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13415888-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat TH, 18 Kent Terrace, Riverhead, Riverhead 0820 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5421230 — Exemplary damages

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 24 March 2025, the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy on 21 June 2025. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00 (see s 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A RTA).
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 (see s 109(3) RTA).
The applicant (tenant) is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The applicant had concerns about the legality of the premises and made an application to the Tribunal in March 2025. That application was not determined until January 2026. The premises were declared to be unlawful, compensation and exemplary damages were awarded.
The tenant’s application for a retaliatory notice could not have been included in the first application as the notice had not been issued when that application was made. However, it is not clear why that application was not amended to include a retaliatory notice claim. The first application was not heard until many months after the tenancy ended and, it seems the tenant had a number of opportunities to submit additional information.
The "Rule in Henderson v Henderson" is a legal principle that prevents parties from raising claims or issues in later proceedings that could and should have been raised in earlier proceedings between the same parties. The rule is designed to promote finality in litigation and prevent abuse of the court process by re-litigating matters that have already been, or could have been, decided. The rule means that parties must bring forward all relevant claims and issues in their initial application and cannot bring new claims in subsequent proceedings if those claims could have been raised earlier.
It is not clear from any of the Orders under the previous application, whether the tenant applied to amend that application. I consider that the correct approach would have been for the tenant to apply to amend the previous application and have all matters determined in the one application. However, I will consider and determine the substance of this application as the tenant maintains that she was advised to make a second application rather than amend her first one.
After the tenant raised her concerns about the premises, and made her first application to the Tribunal, the Landlord issued the 90-day notice to end the tenancy. The tenant responded by giving her own 21 day notice to end the tenancy, and (with the landlord’s agreement) moved before the 21 days had expired.
The landlord says that its notice was not retaliatory. Rather, it says that it accepted that the tenant had raised valid concerns about the lawfulness of the premises and consents being required. Those matters were considered at the first hearing. The landlord says that it was prudent to end any tenancy until Council concerns had been addressed. The correct process for ending a tenancy where premises are unlawful is set out at s56A RTA.
The Tribunal has held that the term motivate has the ordinary dictionary meaning “to give impetus to ... to impel”. Usually there will be little direct evidence about the landlord’s intent in giving a termination notice. Therefore, the Tribunal must consider what inferences, if any, can be drawn from the timing and sequence of events.
Where there is a short period of time between the tenant raising an issue about the tenancy and the landlord serving a notice, this may lead to a strong inference that the landlord was at least partly motivated by the tenant exercising their rights. In this situation, the evidential onus shifts to the landlord to show that there was a legitimate reason for the notice.
I find that the notice was issued in response to the tenant’s concerns, but that the landlord genuinely wanted to resolve consent and compliance issues before the premises were re-tenanted. Given that the tenant moved less than 21 days after the 90-day notice was issued and has already been compensated for the premises being unlawful, I do not consider that it is the parties interest or public interest for exemplary damages to be awarded. Put another way, the notice was retaliatory (in the sense that it was issued in response to the Tenant concerns), but the circumstances do not warrant an award of exemplary damages.
The application is dismissed.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 24 March 2025, the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy on 21 June 2025. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.
For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00 (see s 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A RTA).
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 (see s 109(3) RTA).
The applicant (tenant) is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The applicant had concerns about the legality of the premises and made an application to the Tribunal in March 2025. That application was not determined until January 2026. The premises were declared to be unlawful, compensation and exemplary damages were awarded.
The tenant’s application for a retaliatory notice could not have been included in the first application as the notice had not been issued when that application was made. However, it is not clear why that application was not amended to include a retaliatory notice claim. The first application was not heard until many months after the tenancy ended and, it seems the tenant had a number of opportunities to submit additional information.
The "Rule in Henderson v Henderson" is a legal principle that prevents parties from raising claims or issues in later proceedings that could and should have been raised in earlier proceedings between the same parties. The rule is designed to promote finality in litigation and prevent abuse of the court process by re-litigating matters that have already been, or could have been, decided. The rule means that parties must bring forward all relevant claims and issues in their initial application and cannot bring new claims in subsequent proceedings if those claims could have been raised earlier.
It is not clear from any of the Orders under the previous application, whether the tenant applied to amend that application. I consider that the correct approach would have been for the tenant to apply to amend the previous application and have all matters determined in the one application. However, I will consider and determine the substance of this application as the tenant maintains that she was advised to make a second application rather than amend her first one.
After the tenant raised her concerns about the premises, and made her first application to the Tribunal, the Landlord issued the 90-day notice to end the tenancy. The tenant responded by giving her own 21 day notice to end the tenancy, and (with the landlord’s agreement) moved before the 21 days had expired.
The landlord says that its notice was not retaliatory. Rather, it says that it accepted that the tenant had raised valid concerns about the lawfulness of the premises and consents being required. Those matters were considered at the first hearing. The landlord says that it was prudent to end any tenancy until Council concerns had been addressed. The correct process for ending a tenancy where premises are unlawful is set out at s56A RTA.
The Tribunal has held that the term motivate has the ordinary dictionary meaning “to give impetus to ... to impel”. Usually there will be little direct evidence about the landlord’s intent in giving a termination notice. Therefore, the Tribunal must consider what inferences, if any, can be drawn from the timing and sequence of events.
Where there is a short period of time between the tenant raising an issue about the tenancy and the landlord serving a notice, this may lead to a strong inference that the landlord was at least partly motivated by the tenant exercising their rights. In this situation, the evidential onus shifts to the landlord to show that there was a legitimate reason for the notice.
I find that the notice was issued in response to the tenant’s concerns, but that the landlord genuinely wanted to resolve consent and compliance issues before the premises were re-tenanted. Given that the tenant moved less than 21 days after the 90-day notice was issued and has already been compensated for the premises being unlawful, I do not consider that it is the parties interest or public interest for exemplary damages to be awarded. Put another way, the notice was retaliatory (in the sense that it was issued in response to the Tenant concerns), but the circumstances do not warrant an award of exemplary damages.
The application is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5421230 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat TH, 18 Kent Terrace, Riverhead, Riverhead 0820

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5421230 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat TH, 18 Kent Terrace, Riverhead, Riverhead 0820

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions