Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5423214 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 602, 2 Dockside Lane, Auckland Central, Auckland
Decided 3 February 2026 · Published 3 February 2026 · Application 5423214
Landlord favoured
- Rent arrears
- Property damage
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $7,092.56
- Bond payment as ordered
- −$2,600.00
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $4,492.56
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rent arrears to 2 February 2026 | $6,405.00 | Rent arrears to 2 February 2026 | |
| Lock/key replacement: Damage October 2025 | $659.56 | Lock/key replacement: Damage October 2025 | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $4,492.56 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $4,492.56 |
Claims and awards for application 5423214 — net $4,492.56 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Rent arrears to 2 February 2026
- Amount
- $6,405.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Rent arrears to 2 February 2026
Lock/key replacement: Damage October 2025
- Amount
- $659.56
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Lock/key replacement: Damage October 2025
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Landlord $4,492.56
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $4,492.56
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- The tenancy of Yoriko Unno and Phillip Curreen at Unit/Flat 602, 2 Dockside Lane, Auckland Central, Auckland 1010, The Docks is terminated, and possession is granted to Rentin Limited, at midday on Tuesday 3 February 2026.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,600.00 to Rentin Limited immediately.
- Yoriko Unno as tenant must pay Rentin Limited $4,492.56 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:
- Phillip Curren is a guarantor of the tenant’s obligations and is liable for total owed by the tenant of $4,492.56.
Reasons
What are these applications about?
- The landlord has made two applications to the Tribunal. The first application filed on the 20 November 2025 was for rent arrears, compensation for damage (door and locks) and heat pump panel replacement, the second application was filed on the 8 January 2026 and sought termination, rent arrears, compensation for damage of the locks and disposal of the goods and the filing fee.
- The landlord also seeks a determination from the Tribunal as to Mr Curren’s liability as a guarantor.
What happened at the hearing?
- Today’s hearing was held by video, the landlord’s property manager Mr Abbas attended. The tenant was called twice on the telephone numbers in the application but neither call was answered. The tenant did not attend by video. I am satisfied that the tenant was given notice of today’s hearing and have proceeded in her absence.
- Mr Curreen was given notice of today’s hearing. He did not attend by video but answered the call when I rang him. He tells me his position is that he is not a guarantor. He says that he was merely helping his friend out. He said he had another obligation to attend to this morning and could not continue to attend the hearing. The issues that need to be determined.
- The questions that the Tribunal must determine are: a. Should the tenancy be terminated, if so under what provision? b. What are the rent arrears? c. Is the tenant liable for the lock replacement charge? d. Is Mr Curreen a guarantor and if so, what is his liability?
Should the tenancy be terminated, if so under what provision?
- The landlord’s first application did not seek termination.
- The landlord’s second application claimed termination on two alternative grounds: a. That the tenancy had terminated on the 6 January by termination notice given on the 8 October 2025. b. That the tenant was more than 21 days in arrears as at the date of application.
- The landlord gave a 90 day notice to terminate on the 8 October 2025, the notice was given by email to both the tenant and Mr Curreen.
- The landlord provided the notice, it shows that it was sent at 17.45, this means that it was sent at 5.45pm. As the notice was sent after 5pm then it was deemed to have been sent on the next working day which was Thursday 9 October. 1 The termination notice set the termination date at 6 January 2026, which was 90 days away from the 8 October 2025. However, as the notice was not deemed to be sent pursuant to s136 (8) RTA until 9am the following day, then the notice was defective as it did not give a full 90 days 2 , (it only gave 89 days), therefore I decline to grant possession pursuant to the termination notice.
- I am however satisfied that as at the date of the application the tenant was more than 21 days in arrears and remains in arrears and I grant termination pursuant to section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The landlord tells me that the tenant is still living in the property.
How much is owed for rent?
- The landlord provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. I am satisfied that as at yesterday’s date the tenant owed $6405.00 for rent.
Is the tenant liable for the lock replacement charge?
- Tenants are liable for any careless or intentional damage that they or their visitors or invitees cause to the premises that is more than fair wear and tear.
- The landlord was informed by the building manager on the 8 October that the tenant had reported that she had damaged her door lock and now could not lock her apartment door. The landlord asked Armstrong Lock Smiths to repair the lock, which they completed on the 10 October 2025.
- I am satisfied that the tenant damaged the lock and that the lock had to be replaced as result of the damage. The landlord provided me with the invoice from Armstrong Lock Smiths for this work and I am satisfied that the tenant is liable for the invoice. The amount awarded is proven.
Is Mr Curreen a guarantor and if so, what is his liability?
- The landlord says that Mr Curreen agreed to guarantee the tenant’s obligations as guarantor. The landlord says that the original tenancy was managed by a different property manager, who Mr Abbas worked for. He says that Mr Curreen signed a written document agreeing to guarantee the obligations of the tenant, 1 See s136(8) and 136(A) RTA. 2 As required by s51(1) RTA. but that when the property management was taken over, the guarantee was lost. 3
- The landlord says that, in any case, Mr Curreen has confirmed on multiple occasions that he is the guarantor in writing and has provided emails and text messages in support of this submission.
- The landlord says that the tenant was due to leave in September 2025 but sought to continue with her tenancy on the condition that she repaid the rent owing as at the date. Mr Abbas also said that they would not be prepared to allow the tenant to continue unless Mr Curreen was her guarantor. The landlord says Mr Curreen paid some of the rent, as the landlord requested.
- The landlord asked if Mr Curreen would be willing to continue as guarantor to which Mr Curreen confirmed in writing that he would
- Mr Curreen says that never signed any guarantee, and that he has not agreed to be the tenant’s guarantor. He submits that as he did not sign any guarantee, then he cannot be bound to be a guarantor.
- A guarantor is defined in the RTA as guarantor, in relation to a tenancy, means a person who guarantees the performance of the tenant’s obligations, or who indemnifies the landlord against loss that he or she may incur in respect of the tenancy, or who assumes liability for the performance of the obligations of the tenant, and guarantee has a corresponding meaning. 4
- Section 27 of the Property Law Act 2007 sets out the requirements of a guarantee, it requires guarantees to be in writing and signed by the guarantor.
- There have been many cases in various jurisdictions where the guarantor has argued that they are not bound, because the guarantee was made verbally, in writing but over various media or documents or was not signed. The Courts have determined there must be an agreement in writing where the intention to be bound by a guarantee is clearly expressed, and the agreement must be ‘signed’. 5
- The Courts have determined that multiple written documents may satisfy the ‘written’ component. The guarantee does not have to be of any special form, or words but must clearly express that guarantor agrees to be bound. 3 The tenancy agreement provided to the Tribunal records the landlord’s name as Rentin Limited, not another property management company, so I have reservations about the veracity of this statement. If the tenancy agreement was made in the name of the applicant landlord, then it would be difficult to understand why the guarantee was being held by another agency. 4 Section 2 RTA. 5 See Northcott v Davidson, HC Whangarei, CIV 2012-488-97, 7 June 2012
- The Courts have previously held that signing does not require the actual signature of the person. In Tait- Jamieson v Cadrona Ski Resort, Justice French said: “That doctrine provides that if certain requirements are met, the written, printed or typed name of a party appearing in the writing as some part of its substance (for example, in the space for the name of the party) can be held to be the signature of that party. The fiction is that the party has authenticated that expression of the name as their signature for the purpose of further authenticating the writing of which it forms part.” 6
- What this means in this case is that the guarantee does not have to be contained in one written document, it can be formed over many written documents, and it does not have to be signed in the technical sense of having a written signature at the end of a guarantee document.
- The landlord relies on numerous text and email messages between the parties.
- The first of these is a text exchange between Mr Curreen and the landlord on the 28 August 2022, in that exchange Mr Curreen sent a text from his phone to the landlord saying: (sic)
- The landlord accepted Mr Curreen’s offer to be a guarantor.
- In September 2025, following a request from the tenant to continue with the tenancy, Mr Abbas for the landlord and Mr Curreen exchanged the following texts: 31. 6 Tait-Jamieson v Cardrona Ski Resort Ltd [2012] 1 NZLR 105 (HC) at [27].
- The landlord confirmed that Mr Curreen did not send a further email as requested.
- I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, from the correspondence provided that Mr Curreen intended to be bound as a guarantor, guaranteeing the tenants obligations for the following reasons: • He had agreed in writing (text message- August 2022) to be bound as a guarantor. He had offered up the guarantee not the landlord. • Mr Curreen had acted in accordance with his obligations as guarantor and had paid the tenant’s rent arrears in August 2025. • Mr Curreen had again agreed to act as guarantor to the tenant in his text conversations with the landlord on the 3 September 2025. The landlord had allowed the tenant to remain in the tenancy in reliance of that agreement. • The text conversations are in writing and show the express intention to be bound as guarantor by the use of those words. • The messages were sent between two phone numbers, the landlord’s and Mr Curreen’s, the landlord refers to Mr Curreen by name when asking him to confirm that he will be a guarantor. Mr Curreen confirms that he will be. • There is no evidence that anyone else had Mr Curreen’s phone or that it was not Mr Curreen who had not sent the text. • I consider that Mr Curreen ‘signed’ the written agreement, because the text messages came from his phone and his name is referred to in the text conversation.
- I am therefore satisfied that Mr Curreen agreed to by the tenant’s guarantor and that this guarantee was in writing and ‘signed’ and was therefore enforceable.
- The Tribunal has ordered the tenant to pay $4,492.56 to the landlord for the tenant’s breaches, which are all matters covered by the guarantee.
- I am therefore satisfied that the guarantor is liable under the guarantee to pay the landlord the sum ordered. See section 77(2)(ka) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Other matters.
- The landlord had sought other costs for damage to the apartment, and disposal of goods. The landlord has not remedied the damage due to the ongoing issues with the tenant. The landlord cannot apply for a disposal of goods before the tenancy ends, as the tenant may well take her items with her.
- The landlord therefore withdraws its other claims. It intends to take possession of the property and file further claims for and damages once the condition of the property can be ascertained at the end of the tenancy. I consider that is a sensible way of dealing with the landlord’s residual claims. Filing fee
- Because Rentin Limited has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s136, s136(8), s2, s27, s51(1), s55(1), s77(2), s90
Key findings
- Dispute theme: rent arrears
- Dispute theme: property damage
Property management
- RENTIN LIMITED (applicant)
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5423214?
The tribunal order states: The tenancy of Yoriko Unno and Phillip Curreen at Unit/Flat 602, 2 Dockside
How much money was awarded in case 5423214?
Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $659.56 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $6,405.00 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5423214?
The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Property damage.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5423214?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13064689-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.