What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5421764 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 5421764?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5421764?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5421764?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13154232-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5421764 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 5421764?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5421764?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5421764?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13154232-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5421764 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5421764 — 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

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Lakshitha Roshan Mudannayakage must pay [The landlord/s] $28.00 immediately, being reimbursement of the filing fee.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 19 February 2026. The tenant was assisted by an interpreter.
The parties accepted that this was a fixed term tenancy. The most recent version of the fixed term tenancies entered into by the parties commenced on 28 October 2025 and is to end on 28 April 2026. That is the relevant agreement for the purposes of this hearing. The tenancy had commenced prior to that most recent version.
A fixed term tenancy can only be ended early by order of the Tribunal or by the consent of both parties.
The tenant seeks an order from the Tribunal reducing or terminating the fixed term tenancy. The landlord opposes that application, which if successful would result in the fixed term tenancy remaining in place. Law
Section 66 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides in part: 66 Reduction or termination of fixed-term tenancy (1) On application by a party to a fixed-term tenancy, the Tribunal may make an order reducing the term of the tenancy by a period stated in the order, and making such variations in the terms of the tenancy as are necessary because of the reduction of the term, where it is satisfied that, because of an unforeseen change in the applicants circumstances, the severe hardship which the applicant would suffer if the term of the tenancy were not reduced would be greater than the hardship which the other party to the tenancy would suffer if the term were reduced. (2) Where the Tribunal makes an order under subsection (1), the Tribunal may order that the applicant pay to the other party an amount determined by the Tribunal by way of reasonable compensation for any loss or damage to the other party which would result from the reduction in the term of the tenancy.
The usual legal position with a fixed-term contract is that the term of the contract will be applied strictly, and it is only in limited circumstances that a Court or Tribunal will interfere with it. For residential tenancies, one of those circumstances is found in s 66 RTA, which allows for the reduction of fixed term tenancy agreements.
There is a high threshold 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 b. the change was unforeseen c. the unforeseen change will result in severe hardship to the applicant if the tenancy is not reduced d. the severe hardship the applicant will suffer if the term is not reduced exceeds the hardship the other party will suffer if the term is reduced.
Section 66(2) RTA provides that, if the Tribunal reduces the term of the tenancy, it may order the applicant to pay reasonable compensation to the other party for any loss or damage which results from the reduction of the term. Tenant’s Evidence
The tenant’s application is based on what the tenant says was an unforeseen change in his financial ability to meet the rental obligations under the tenancy.
The tenant’s family consists of his wife and three children. The youngest of those children was born in early 2025.
Nine months after giving birth the tenant’s wife returned to work as they still required the income to meet their expenses. The tenant’s wife initially only worked part time which meant that their childcare obligations were able to be met. Financially however, the tenant says that the family were still struggling.
The tenant’s wife then moved to more hours of work per week. This caused an increase in their child’s day care costs. The only appropriate day care came at a cost of $77.00 per day for a four-day block. The tenant says that this resulted in half of the income from his wife's employment being spent on day care costs. He says that their joint income was no longer sufficient to meet their rental obligations and invites the Tribunal to end the tenancy.
On 19 December 2025, the tenant provided the landlord by email, with 39 days’ notice to end the tenancy on 28 January 2026.
On 12 January 2026, the tenant provided the landlord with written reasons for his wish to end the tenancy. Landlord’s evidence
The landlord says that the tenant entered into a fresh fixed term tenancy on 29 October 2025 and that the tenant must have been aware of any financial constraints at that time.
The landlord says that the financial records provided by the tenant do not support the claim of financial difficulties suddenly arising after 29 October 2025.
The landlord points to the bank statement dated 19 December 2025 provided for the tenant’s wife, showing $6,500.00 in a savings account and a further payment of $3,700.00 for airline tickets for the tenant’s wife and children to leave New Zealand. They point to the regular purchase of lotto tickets during the December period to indicate that either there was no financial hardship or that if there was, that the hardship had been in existence at the time the latest fixed term tenancy had been entered into and cannot be considered unforeseen at that time.
The landlord explained that they have mortgage commitments to their bank. Their borrowing is to be reviewed by their bank in March and it is conditional upon them receiving $600.00 in rental income weekly. Analysis
The central issue for the Tribunal is to determine is the balance to be struck between the interests of a tenant caught in a situation seemingly beyond his control, and the interests of the landlord with an expectation of continued cash flow for the period of the fixed term.
Having reviewed the evidence, I consider the following to be relevant in deciding that the tenant has not shown an unforeseen change in circumstances;
The most recent fixed term tenancy was signed on 28 October 2025. A little over 7 weeks later, the tenant provided the landlord with notice to terminate the tenancy.
The financial evidence provided by the tenant does not persuade me that any unforeseen change in the financial circumstances was such that he was no longer able to meet his obligations to pay the landlord. In particular, I refer to the funds held by the tenant’s wife in her savings account and the ability to fund the flights, as evidence that the tenant was able to meet the financial obligations to the landlord but chose a different course. I accept that the tenant has done this for reasons which he considered to be appropriate, but having done so, he cannot now invite the Tribunal to simply cancel his financial obligations to the landlord.
Even if I am wrong in that assessment, had I ordered the fixed term tenancy to be reduced, I would have ordered the tenant to pay compensation for the losses incurred by the landlord as a result of his defaulting on the fixed term tenancy in a sum equivalent to the rent to the end of the tenancy.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The landlord has been wholly successful in this matter. The landlord’s name and details are to be suppressed. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and the tenant’s application for name suppression is dismissed.
As the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5421764 — 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

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
Lakshitha Roshan Mudannayakage must pay [The landlord/s] $28.00 immediately, being reimbursement of the filing fee.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 19 February 2026. The tenant was assisted by an interpreter.
The parties accepted that this was a fixed term tenancy. The most recent version of the fixed term tenancies entered into by the parties commenced on 28 October 2025 and is to end on 28 April 2026. That is the relevant agreement for the purposes of this hearing. The tenancy had commenced prior to that most recent version.
A fixed term tenancy can only be ended early by order of the Tribunal or by the consent of both parties.
The tenant seeks an order from the Tribunal reducing or terminating the fixed term tenancy. The landlord opposes that application, which if successful would result in the fixed term tenancy remaining in place. Law
Section 66 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides in part: 66 Reduction or termination of fixed-term tenancy (1) On application by a party to a fixed-term tenancy, the Tribunal may make an order reducing the term of the tenancy by a period stated in the order, and making such variations in the terms of the tenancy as are necessary because of the reduction of the term, where it is satisfied that, because of an unforeseen change in the applicants circumstances, the severe hardship which the applicant would suffer if the term of the tenancy were not reduced would be greater than the hardship which the other party to the tenancy would suffer if the term were reduced. (2) Where the Tribunal makes an order under subsection (1), the Tribunal may order that the applicant pay to the other party an amount determined by the Tribunal by way of reasonable compensation for any loss or damage to the other party which would result from the reduction in the term of the tenancy.
The usual legal position with a fixed-term contract is that the term of the contract will be applied strictly, and it is only in limited circumstances that a Court or Tribunal will interfere with it. For residential tenancies, one of those circumstances is found in s 66 RTA, which allows for the reduction of fixed term tenancy agreements.
There is a high threshold 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 b. the change was unforeseen c. the unforeseen change will result in severe hardship to the applicant if the tenancy is not reduced d. the severe hardship the applicant will suffer if the term is not reduced exceeds the hardship the other party will suffer if the term is reduced.
Section 66(2) RTA provides that, if the Tribunal reduces the term of the tenancy, it may order the applicant to pay reasonable compensation to the other party for any loss or damage which results from the reduction of the term. Tenant’s Evidence
The tenant’s application is based on what the tenant says was an unforeseen change in his financial ability to meet the rental obligations under the tenancy.
The tenant’s family consists of his wife and three children. The youngest of those children was born in early 2025.
Nine months after giving birth the tenant’s wife returned to work as they still required the income to meet their expenses. The tenant’s wife initially only worked part time which meant that their childcare obligations were able to be met. Financially however, the tenant says that the family were still struggling.
The tenant’s wife then moved to more hours of work per week. This caused an increase in their child’s day care costs. The only appropriate day care came at a cost of $77.00 per day for a four-day block. The tenant says that this resulted in half of the income from his wife's employment being spent on day care costs. He says that their joint income was no longer sufficient to meet their rental obligations and invites the Tribunal to end the tenancy.
On 19 December 2025, the tenant provided the landlord by email, with 39 days’ notice to end the tenancy on 28 January 2026.
On 12 January 2026, the tenant provided the landlord with written reasons for his wish to end the tenancy. Landlord’s evidence
The landlord says that the tenant entered into a fresh fixed term tenancy on 29 October 2025 and that the tenant must have been aware of any financial constraints at that time.
The landlord says that the financial records provided by the tenant do not support the claim of financial difficulties suddenly arising after 29 October 2025.
The landlord points to the bank statement dated 19 December 2025 provided for the tenant’s wife, showing $6,500.00 in a savings account and a further payment of $3,700.00 for airline tickets for the tenant’s wife and children to leave New Zealand. They point to the regular purchase of lotto tickets during the December period to indicate that either there was no financial hardship or that if there was, that the hardship had been in existence at the time the latest fixed term tenancy had been entered into and cannot be considered unforeseen at that time.
The landlord explained that they have mortgage commitments to their bank. Their borrowing is to be reviewed by their bank in March and it is conditional upon them receiving $600.00 in rental income weekly. Analysis
The central issue for the Tribunal is to determine is the balance to be struck between the interests of a tenant caught in a situation seemingly beyond his control, and the interests of the landlord with an expectation of continued cash flow for the period of the fixed term.
Having reviewed the evidence, I consider the following to be relevant in deciding that the tenant has not shown an unforeseen change in circumstances;
The most recent fixed term tenancy was signed on 28 October 2025. A little over 7 weeks later, the tenant provided the landlord with notice to terminate the tenancy.
The financial evidence provided by the tenant does not persuade me that any unforeseen change in the financial circumstances was such that he was no longer able to meet his obligations to pay the landlord. In particular, I refer to the funds held by the tenant’s wife in her savings account and the ability to fund the flights, as evidence that the tenant was able to meet the financial obligations to the landlord but chose a different course. I accept that the tenant has done this for reasons which he considered to be appropriate, but having done so, he cannot now invite the Tribunal to simply cancel his financial obligations to the landlord.
Even if I am wrong in that assessment, had I ordered the fixed term tenancy to be reduced, I would have ordered the tenant to pay compensation for the losses incurred by the landlord as a result of his defaulting on the fixed term tenancy in a sum equivalent to the rent to the end of the tenancy.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The landlord has been wholly successful in this matter. The landlord’s name and details are to be suppressed. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this matter and the tenant’s application for name suppression is dismissed.
As the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5421764 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5421764 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions