Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5432068 — Exemplary damages in Havelock North, Havelock North
Decided 20 Apr 2026 · Published 20 Apr 2026 · Application 5432068
- 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.
Location
Havelock North
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
B King
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $7,528.00
- Total balance for Landlord to pay Tenant
- $7,528.00
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compensation: unlawful eviction | $1,000.00 | unlawful eviction | |
| Exemplary damages: unlawful eviction | $6,000.00 | unlawful eviction | |
| Compensation: loss of belongings | $500.00 | loss of belongings | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $7,528.00 | ||
| Total payable by Landlord to Tenant | $7,528.00 |
Claims and awards for application 5432068 — net $7,528.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Compensation: unlawful eviction
- Amount
- $1,000.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- unlawful eviction
Exemplary damages: unlawful eviction
- Amount
- $6,000.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- unlawful eviction
Compensation: loss of belongings
- Amount
- $500.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- loss of belongings
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Tenant $7,528.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant
Tenant $7,528.00
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case. The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details. The landlords have been found in breach of their obligations, so the grounds for suppression are not established. 1
- must pay immediately, calculated below:
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- Because this is a service tenancy arising out of a service relationship between [the tenant/s] and Tiaki Homes NZ Limited, that company is a landlord party.
- A “landlord” also includes, where appropriate, an agent of a landlord. Mr Tawhiti is the sole director of the company and all dealings, communications and decisions concerning this arrangement were through him. It is appropriate that Mr Tawhiti, as the company’s director and agent, also be a landlord party. Background
- In mid-2025 the parties entered into negotiations for what the Disputes Tribunal considered to be an employment relationship. 2
- I am told that there are proceedings before the Employment Relations Authority which will determine whether their agreement was an employment agreement or a contract for services.
- For the Tribunal’s consideration of this dispute, that distinction is not material. The definition of “Services Tenancy” extends to tenancies incidental to both types of agreement. 3
- However their agreement is best categorised, it is clear, as found by the Disputes Tribunal, that as part of the role [the tenant/s] was undertaking, he was to be provided with accommodation.
- That accommodation was agreed as being, at least initially, the premises which are the subject of this application.
- Those premises comprised a self-contained studio and workspace on a property owned by another company of which Mr Tawhiti is director. Mr Tawhiti and his family occupy the main dwelling on the property.
- [The tenant/s] relocated from Auckland and moved into the premises, leaving many of his possessions in storage in Auckland.
- On 31 August 2025, while was in [overseas] visiting his children, [the tenant/s] was e-mail by Mr Tawhiti, “I cannot afford you or a number of other staff and will be making cutbacks as I have started already. Unfortunately it is the end of the road for the project management role [the tenant/s] and I do apologise for inconvenience this has caused.” 2 UI Limited v WE CIV-2025-020-000514 Disputes Tribunal Hastings 15 March 2026 3 S.2 RTA
- A further e-mail from Mr Tawhiti on 1 September notes, “...happy to talk later this evening as mentioned in previous email around the next steps staying [address] until you find accommodation etc. I’m not kicking you out, I’m just not pursuing with offer of employment as project manager.”
- On 5 September Mr Tawhiti txt [the tenant/s], “...after what you have done u need to leave my property immediately this morning otherwise I will have you escorted off the property...”
- [The tenant/s] sought legal advice. Later that day he was contacted by another of the company's workers to say there that there were people at the premises wanting to serve him with papers. [The tenant/s] went to the premises. There were 2 process servers there to serve a trespass notice on him. He clarified with them whether it was a notice of termination or a trespass notice he was being served with. It was confirmed as a trespass notice and that [the tenant/s] needed to take his things and leave the premises.
- [The tenant/s] explained the legal advice he had received, which was that he was occupying the premises under a service tenancy which required 2 weeks’ notice of termination to be given. The process servers sought instructions from Mr Tawhiti, who confirmed that [the tenant/s] was to be removed.
- The process servers accompanied [the tenant/s] to the premises, oversaw and helped him remove his belongings then changed the locks, preventing [the tenant/s] from returning.
- [The tenant/s] has been living in various forms of temporary accommodation since then. The Claims.
- [The tenant/s] brings the following claims: • $12,000.00 - lost accommodation value • $6,975.00 - Relocation and storage • $4,135 – Credit cards fees/ interest • $1,500.00 – unreturned belongings • $1,800.00 phone/ car utilities • $2,000.00 – property damage • $1,000.00 – Tribunal/ police costs • $12,000.00 – exemplary damages for unlawful eviction. The Issues
- The questions the Tribunal needs to answer are: a. was there a tenancy agreement in place between the parties? b. if so; i. who were the parties; ii. was it a tenancy agreement covered by the Residential Tenancies Act? (RTA); iii. was it a service tenancy? c. was it ended unlawfully? d. if so: i. was loss caused to [the tenant/s] for which compensation should be ordered, and how much? ii. should exemplary damages be awarded, and how much?
Was there a tenancy agreement between the parties?
- “Tenancy” means the right to occupy residential premises in consideration for rent. “Rent” includes any money, goods, services or other consideration. 4
- Mr Tawhiti says there was no intention to establish a tenancy with [the tenant/s], who he simply allowed to stay at his place as a guest, while they were working out the terms of their commercial relationship. He says the premises was a workspace with a few facilities but never intended for residential occupation and not lawfully able to be occupied for residential purposes.
- The evidence shows that [the tenant/s] was occupying the premises as his residence. It had the necessary sleeping, cooking, washing facilities for that purpose.
- Evidence given by the process server confirms that the possessions of [the tenant/s] that he helped remove, were consistent with domestic use (clothing, pots pans crockery, bedding, food etc).
- Whether it was lawful for the premises to be occupied as a residence is a separate question and not one the Tribunal has been asked to answer in this claim.
- It is correct that there is no evidence of any separate rent being paid to the landlord by [the tenant/s]. However, with respect, I concur with the view of the Disputes Tribunal referee 5 that the exchanges between the parties show that 4 S.2 RTA 5 See paragraph 6 of eth Disputes Tribunal decision providing accommodation was part of the package being negotiated. The “rent” was though services to be provided by [the tenant/s].
- I find that the parties were landlord and tenant under a residential tenancy agreement.
Was the agreement excluded from the RTA?
- [The tenant/s]
- The exclusions that require consideration here are: a. s.5(1)(a) – where the premises are commercial premises; b. s.5(1)(n) – where the premises, not being a boarding house, continue to be used, during the tenancy, principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the owner of the premises or by any member of the landlord’s or owner’s family.
- I accept Mr Tawhiti’s evidence that the premises has been used by the business as office space. I have found however that they were provided to [the tenant/s] as residential accommodation so in the context of this agreement, they had a residential not commercial use and purpose.
- In considering whether premises are used as a place of residence by both the landlord and tenant, it is necessary to focus on what premises the agreement allowed the tenant to use and what sharing of the premises between the landlord and tenant was possible and in fact occurred.
- Here, while the premises were a studio on unsubdivided land where Mr Tawhiti’s home was also located, they were self-contained. [The tenant/s] was not able to access Mr Tawhiti’s home or use facilities there. [The tenant/s] had exclusive use of the studio. There was no sharing of residential space or facilities. These premises were separate from the premises occupied by Mr Tawhiti and his family. They were not used during the tenancy principally as a place of residence for Mr Tawhiti and his family.
- I find that this tenancy was not excluded from the RTA by those provisions.
- The parties’ rights and obligations are therefore determined by the RTA.
What was the nature of the tenancy and what are the implications?
- This was a service tenancy as defined in s.2 RTA, being, “....a tenancy granted under a term of, or otherwise as an incident of, a contract of service or a contract for services between the landlord as employer and the tenant as employee or contractor, whether or not a separate tenancy agreement is concluded in writing between the parties, and whether or not any rent is payable for the tenancy.”
- What that means is that unlike other residential tenancies, it could be ended on 14 days’ notice after the contract for services ended.
Was the tenancy ended unlawfully?
- The contract for services was ended by Mr Tawhiti on 31 August 2025.
- This Tribunal only needs to decide whether, as a question of fact, the contract was ended, not whether it was ended lawfully. 6
- That being so, at any time after 31 August 2025, the landlord was entitled to terminate the tenancy by giving 14 days’ notice. 7
- No notice terminating the tenancy was given to [the tenant/s] until Mr Tawhiti txt him on 5 September requiring that he move out immediately.
- That did not meet the notice requirements and was unlawful.
Should compensation be awarded?
- [The tenant/s] was entitled to occupation of the premises for 14 days from the notice of termination. By being denied that entitlement through the landlords’ wrongful actions, he has had to find other accommodation and storage for his belongings for that 2 week period. Having regard to the evidence of his accommodation costs, I assess $1,000.00 as fair compensation for that loss.
- [The tenant/s] claims compensation for loss of belongings he could not retrieve from the premises when he was evicted, a 23” computer monitor with stand and cables, some kitchen items and linen.
- Evidence was given at the hearing by the process server who escorted [the tenant/s] from the premises and helped him remove some belongings. His evidence is that [the tenant/s] was given the opportunity to take whatever he wanted and indicated he had taken all his belongings except for the fixed computer monitor and some minor kitchen utensils. He advised Mr Tawhiti accordingly. Mr Tawhiti says the monitor is his.
- I find it proved, on balance that [the tenant/s] did bring the computer monitor with him and was unable to retrieve that and some other minor items, due the circumstances in which he was removed from the premises. His evidence about 6 S.53(7)(a) RTA 7 S.53(1) RTA ownership of those assets is consistent with what he told the process server at the time.
- Mr Tawhiti was told by the process server that there were belongings [the tenant/s] claimed from the premises and it was within his power to arrange for them to be provided to [the tenant/s].
- Loss of those belongings is a loss caused to [the tenant/s] by breach of the landlords’ obligations and should be compensated for.
- Having regard to the limited evidence about the extent of the kitchenware and linen left at the premises, and the available evidence about the value of the monitor, I assess $500.00 as fair compensation for loss of the belongings [the tenant/s] could not retrieve from the premises.
- As this is [the tenant/s]’s claim he is required to provide evidence to prove other losses on the balance of probabilities. The evidence includes a video of some of his belongings placed outside the premises when he was evicted. The evidence does not prove any loss of those items or of their value. I do not find the claims for loss of other property proved.
- [The tenant/s] claims compensation for accommodation and storage costs up to the date of the hearing.
- If, as is provided by the RTA, [the tenant/s]’s only entitlement was to 14 days’ notice of termination, while I do not minimise the impacts on [the tenant], I don’t consider those ongoing losses to have been caused by the landlords’ breach of the RTA.
- [The tenant/s] also claims compensation for a number of other losses such as relocation costs, storage, credit card interest and fees. Any such losses do not arise from breach of the RTA but from termination of the services/ employment contract, to which the provision of accommodation was incidental. Those are not claims within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
- As noted above, once that contract was ended, rightly or wrongly, [the tenant/s]’s entitlement was to 14 days’ notice. It is only losses from breach of that entitlement that the Tribunal can award compensation for.
- Legal costs are not awarded by the Tribunal except in circumstances that do not apply here. 8
Should exemplary damages be awarded?
8 S.102 RTA
- If a landlord acts to end a tenancy knowing they are not entitled to, that is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $6,500.00 may be awarded. 9
- Breach of a tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of premises in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $3,000.00 may be awarded 10
- Changing locks without consent is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $1,500.00 may be awarded. 11
- The landlord’s actions in forcing [the tenant/s] out of the premises, effectively without prior notice and changing the locks, breaches each of those obligations. It means that multiple unlawful acts were committed.
- In deciding whether to award exemplary damages for those unlawful acts, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the breach was intentional, which means that what was done, was done consciously. It does not require that the landlord intended to act unlawfully. 12 There is no doubt that Mr Tawhiti’s actions were conscious and intentional. Whether or not he actually knew they were unlawful, he ought to have and could easily have found out by consulting his property manager.
- The Tribunal then needs to consider the intent behind the breach, the effect of the breach, the interests of the tenant and the public interest. 13
- In circumstances such as this, where more than one unlawful act has been committed, the Tribunal needs to be careful to ensure that multiple “punishments” are not awarded for what are, in substance, the same breach of the party’s obligations. 14
- Mr Tawhiti is unapologetic for his actions. He says that [the tenant/s]’s conduct was such that it was simply not an option for [the tenant/s] to remain living on the same property as he and his family. Mr Tawhiti provided no evidence for the hearing.
- Mr Tawhiti notes that he is landlord for very many residential rental properties, which are managed by a professional property manager. He says that shows that he did not intentionally create a residential tenancy relationship with [the tenant/s], otherwise he would have done it properly. He says he did not know 9 S.60AA RTA 10 S.38(3) RTA 11 S.46(3) RTA 12 See for example TMT New Zealand Limited TA Strata Property Management v Sweeney and Sundahl [2021] NZDC 16182 at para [37] 13 S.109(3) RTA 14 Eg. Gardiner v Upland Bay Investments Limited DC Wellington CIV-2014-085-13, 27 August 2014 at paras [28] [29] that a service tenancy could be created without a residential tenancy agreement being signed.
- What Mr Tawhiti’s experience also means, is that he should be aware of the possible implications of “muscling” people out of their place of residence without notice and that he had professional advice readily available to him, to check the legality of his actions.
- For reasons the evidence does not explain, Mr Tawhiti just wanted [the tenant/s] gone.
- The consequences of those actions for [the tenant/s] were severe. He was forced out of his residence without notice, deprived of the opportunity to make other accommodation arrangements, suffered the humiliation of being escorted off the property by the two large process servers hired by Mr Tawhiti, in public view and was effectively put on the street.
- Phone video footage of the early part of that incident was provided. The process servers acted professionally and politely, although unlawfully, in carrying out Mr Tawhiti’s instructions. They did not behave in aggressive or threatening way but their physical presence was undeniably intimidating.
- The video shows that [the tenant/s] explained the legal advice he had been given and accurately set out the legal position. He was not given the option of remaining in the property while the legalities were clarified.
- There is a very clear public interest in landlords in situations like this, not taking the law into their own hands. If Mr Tawhiti felt that [the tenant/s] was occupying the premises without any legal right, an application to the Tribunal could easily and quickly have been made.
- The evidence does not show any factors mitigating what was a fundamentally unlawful and egregious breach of the landlord’s obligations and [the tenant/s]’s occupancy rights.
- In these circumstances, while it is relevant to the assessment of compensation, I do not take account, as a mitigating factor, that [the tenant/s]’s entitlement at the point he was ejected from the premises, was to only 2 weeks’ notice.
- I do not make separate awards of exemplary damages for each of the unlawful acts committed by the landlord. They are all consequences of the same unlawful conduct.
- I find that it would be just to make an award of exemplary damages close to the maximum specified for unlawful termination of a tenancy.
- Because the tenant has had claims upheld I reimburse the filing fee.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s15
Key findings
- Dispute theme: exemplary damages
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5432068 about?
The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case. The Tribunal orders
How much money was awarded in case 5432068?
Compensation: Loss Of Belongings: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Unlawful Eviction: $1,000.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $6,000.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5432068?
The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5432068?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13370492-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.
For landlords & property managers
Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.
Tenantcheck reports take minutes: a small step before a dispute ends up at tribunal.