Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5421770 — Exemplary damages
Decided 8 Mar 2026 · Published 8 Mar 2026 · Application 5421770
- Exemplary damages
Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Adjudicator
M Feist
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties names name and identifying details.
- The application of [The respondent/s] is dismissed.
Reasons
- On 1 January 2026, the property occupants/tenants filed an application with the Tribunal seeking: a. A reduction of the fixed term. b. Refund of the Bond. c. Compensation for breach of quiet enjoyment. d. Compensation for unlawful entry. e. Exemplary damages. f. Reimbursement of the filing fee.
- On 5 January 2026, the property owners/landlords filed a cross application seeking termination of the tenancy and possession of the property.
- The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. [Property occupants/tenants], the occupants/tenants, appeared. [Property owner/landlord] owners/landlords appeared. [Property manager], Property Manager appeared.
- At the hearing, the owner/landlords withdrew their claim for termination and possession. Event timeline
- The Tribunal heard from the parties and reviewed documentary evidence regarding the timeline of events: a. On Sunday 7 December 2025 the owners/landlords emailed the property manager stating: “Our agreement was from October 2024 to October 2025, We have not extended your management but on your request we let you to find tenants. Because you have made many mistakes including breaching Body Cpp rules. As property Owners we are trying to advertise for tenants on Tradme & as mentioned we do not need your services any more. Please do not send my any emails as its not necessary. Thank you for trying to help, please remove your advertisement from all the websites”. b. On Monday 8 December 2025 the property manager emailed the owner/landlord stating the parties have an agreement, the agreement is open ended, if the property owners wish to terminate the agreement, they need to settle the contract and pay for all outstanding expenses “like $4 to $6K”. The email went on to say that they are the property managers and asked for the parties to work together to get the property rented. c. On 8 December 2025, the owner/landlord e-mailed the property manager saying: “Please consider my email dated 7 December 2025 as formal 4-weeks’ notice to terminate the management of our property...we will not be engaging another agency. The property will be managed by us, as it was previously”. d. On 15 December 2025, the occupants/tenants signed a 12-month fixed term tenancy agreement with the property manager. The tenancy commenced on 30 December 2025 with the fixed term due to end of 29 December 2026. e. On 30 December 2025, the occupants/tenants moved into the property. f. On 31 December 2025, the owner/landlord went to the property. The occupants of the property challenged the owner/landlords right to access the property and a verbal dispute between the parties ensued. The property manager was called to the premises. The verbal dispute continued between the owner and property manager. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal
- The preliminary matter I must determine, is whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider the occupant/tenants claim. The Tribunal can only consider disputes in relation to residential tenancies which fall within the Act. Section 77 of the Act relates to the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal, and confirms that: (1) The Tribunal has, subject to the Limitation Act 2010, jurisdiction to determine in accordance with this Act any dispute that— (a) exists between a landlord and a tenant or between a landlord and the guarantor of a tenant; and (b) relates to any tenancy to which this Act applies or to which this Act did apply at any material time.
- The term ‘landlord’ is defined in section 2 as meaning: landlord, in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, means the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement;
- And similarly ‘tenant’ as: tenant, in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, means the grantee of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement;
- The term ‘agent’ is defined in section 2 as: any person who is a landlord or a tenant, means an agent of that person in that person’s capacity as a landlord or tenant; and include an employee of that person in that person’s capacity as landlord or tenant
- An agent can only act on behalf of another party with that parties agreement and consent.
- The term ‘tenancy’ is defined in section 2 as: tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent; and includes any tenancy of residential premises implied or created by any enactment; and, where appropriate, also includes a former tenancy. Analysis and Decision
- On the facts the Tribunal finds:
- On 7 December 2025, the property owner cancelled their agency agreement with the property manager. From that moment the property manager no longer had the right to act as the property owners agent.
- In cancelling the contract the landlord: a. identified issues with the property managers conduct; and b. stated their services were no longer required; and c. instructed the property manager to stop advertising for tenants; and d. indicted they would secure their own tenants and manage the property moving forward.
- The property managers email to the property owner on 8 December 2025 raised potential contract issues and sought to assert their rights to be the property owners agent.
- The property owners emailed reply of 8 December 2025 confirmed their intention to end the agency agreement. The property owners did not consent to work with the property manager to find a new tenant nor did they grant the property manager temporary agency to act on their behalf.
- The Tribunal finds the property owners did not confirm by any agreement or by conduct any tenancy on the property occupants. The property owners had not received rent in advance, tenants details, or tenancy agreement . The property owners were in possession of the keys, automatic garage door openers and parking permits for the property. The Tribunal accepts property owners evidence that they had no knowledge of the property manager entering into a tenancy agreement on their behalf when they went to the property on 31 December 2025.
- The Tribunal declares there is no valid tenancy agreement. The actions of the property manager at the material time (entering into the tenancy) were not the actions of the property owner’s agent, therefore no landlord-tenant relationship was established.
- It is clear the Tribunal that there was a break down in the relationship between the property owner and the property manager. However, any issues arising out of breach of that agency contract, by either party, falls outside of the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal. Property occupants claims
- The property occupants claims all turn on whether there was a valid tenancy agreement.
- The Tribunal has determined that no valid tenancy, on that basis the occupants claims for reduction of the fixed term, compensation and exemplary damages must be dismissed. Other matters
- The occupants sought three weeks to secure alternative accommodation and vacate the premises. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to make such an order.
- The property owner is entitled to possession of the property. However, the property owner is reminded that if they seek possession they must do so in accordance with the provisions of the Act
- Under section 95A(4) of the Act the Tribunal may on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence or names and identifying particulars of any party be suppressed.
- Having heard the case the Tribunal finds that it is appropriate to order suppression of all parties names and identifying particulars. While the facts and merits of this case may be in the public interest, identification of the parties in not. The tenants innocently entered into a tenancy agreement with the property manager. The dispute between the property manager and the property owner over breach of the agency contract is a matter that would not ordinarily be reported. For those reasons, the names and identifying particulars of the parties are suppressed.