What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5424528 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5424528?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5424528?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5424528?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13873304-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5424528 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5424528?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5424528?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5424528?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13873304-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

109 Salamanca Road, Sunnynook, Auckland 0620 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5424528 — Exemplary damages

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Fu represented the landlord.

Ms Baird had a tenancy of the premises commencing on 28 March 2024. The tenancy ended on 8 December 2025 and Ms Baird applied for exemplary damages for breach by the landlord of section 47(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). That section provides that if the landlord puts the premises on the market for sale the landlord must, as soon as practicable, give the tenant written notice of that fact. A failure to comply with section 47(1) is declared to be an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,800 may be payable: section 45(1A) of the Act.

Exemplary damages are different to compensatory damages. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine and are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proved, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the Act. The threshold requirement for the payment of exemplary damages is that the unlawful act was committed ‘intentionally’. In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court held that this requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: (a) The intention of the person (b) The effect of the unlawful act; (c) The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) The public interest.

There is no dispute that the landlord did not give the tenant written notice when they advertised the property for sale on Trademe in or about August 2025.

The landlord had been considering whether to sell the property and had discussed a potential sale with a real estate agent, but she had not made the decision to put the property on the market.

I accept Ms Fu’s evidence and the landlord’s written evidence that the real estate agent who had placed the advertisement on Trademe had no authority from the landlord to do so and as soon as landlord became aware of it, she immediately had it removed. The landlord provided a statement from the real estate agent which supports their evidence.

Thus, I am not satisfied that the landlord turned her mind to the unlawful act (putting the premises on the market for sale without giving the tenant notice of the sale) and then deliberately set about to commit the unlawful act. I consider that the premises being marketed for sale by the placing of the advertisement by the real estate agent was a genuine error.

The application for exemplary damages is therefore dismissed. Suppression

Ms Baird applied, in her application, for a suppression order.

Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).

However, Ms Baird has been wholly unsuccessful in her claim. Her application for name suppression is therefore not granted.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Fu represented the landlord.
Ms Baird had a tenancy of the premises commencing on 28 March 2024. The tenancy ended on 8 December 2025 and Ms Baird applied for exemplary damages for breach by the landlord of section 47(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). That section provides that if the landlord puts the premises on the market for sale the landlord must, as soon as practicable, give the tenant written notice of that fact. A failure to comply with section 47(1) is declared to be an unlawful act for which exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,800 may be payable: section 45(1A) of the Act.
Exemplary damages are different to compensatory damages. They are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine and are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proved, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 of the Act. The threshold requirement for the payment of exemplary damages is that the unlawful act was committed ‘intentionally’. In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 the District Court held that this requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that the party committing the unlawful act has in fact turned his or her mind to the act and deliberately set about to commit it. If the Tribunal considers that the person against whom the order is sought has committed the unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal must then consider whether it would be just to require that person to pay exemplary damages, taking into account: (a) The intention of the person (b) The effect of the unlawful act; (c) The interests of the party against whom the unlawful act was committed; and (d) The public interest.
There is no dispute that the landlord did not give the tenant written notice when they advertised the property for sale on Trademe in or about August 2025.
The landlord had been considering whether to sell the property and had discussed a potential sale with a real estate agent, but she had not made the decision to put the property on the market.
I accept Ms Fu’s evidence and the landlord’s written evidence that the real estate agent who had placed the advertisement on Trademe had no authority from the landlord to do so and as soon as landlord became aware of it, she immediately had it removed. The landlord provided a statement from the real estate agent which supports their evidence.
Thus, I am not satisfied that the landlord turned her mind to the unlawful act (putting the premises on the market for sale without giving the tenant notice of the sale) and then deliberately set about to commit the unlawful act. I consider that the premises being marketed for sale by the placing of the advertisement by the real estate agent was a genuine error.
The application for exemplary damages is therefore dismissed. Suppression
Ms Baird applied, in her application, for a suppression order.
Section 95A of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).
However, Ms Baird has been wholly unsuccessful in her claim. Her application for name suppression is therefore not granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5424528 — Exemplary damages at 109 Salamanca Road, Sunnynook, Auckland 0620

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5424528 — Exemplary damages at 109 Salamanca Road, Sunnynook, Auckland 0620

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