What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5432190 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 5432190?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; One-Day Rent (17 January 2026: $111.43 awarded to landlord; Rent Refund: $780.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5432190?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5432190?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13286378-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5432190 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 5432190?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant; One-Day Rent (17 January 2026: $111.43 awarded to landlord; Rent Refund: $780.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5432190?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5432190?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13286378-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 840 Whangaparaoa Road, Manly, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5432190 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5432190 — net $696.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
One-day rent (17 January 2026	$111.43		One-day rent (17 January 2026
Rent refund		$780.00	Rent refund
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$111.43	$808.00
Net award		$696.57
Bond		$3,120.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$696.57

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5432190 — net $696.57 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
One-day rent (17 January 2026	$111.43		One-day rent (17 January 2026
Rent refund		$780.00	Rent refund
Filing fee reimbursement		$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Total award	$111.43	$808.00
Net award		$696.57
Bond		$3,120.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$696.57

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the [The tenant/s] name and identifying details but not the address.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3,120.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
Tegan Renee Goldsworthy and Goodman Family Nz Limited Stephanie Goodman must pay [The tenant/s] $696.57

Reasons

Introduction

The hearing was held in person on 12 March 2026.
[The tenant/s] is the tenant. Ms Goldsworthy is the landlord of the premises.
At the beginning of the hearing, I attempted to assist the parties in resolving the dispute without the need for a decision.
Following the settlement discussion, I adjourned the hearing for 15 minutes to allow the parties time to reflect. Although both parties expressed a willingness to settle, neither altered their position after the adjournment.
After hearing the parties’ evidence and submissions I again asked whether either party wished to reconsider their position. Both parties remained firm and the matter therefore required determination. Background and Chronology
Ms Goldsworthy is the owner of the premises. She engaged Pristine Property Management to assist with advertising the property and selecting a suitable tenant. Once a tenant had been found and had signed the tenancy agreement, Ms Goldsworthy would manage the tenancy herself.
The property had recently undergone renovation work before being advertised for rent.
[The tenant/s] applied for the property through the property manager. Ms Goldsworthy ultimately selected [The tenant/s] as the successful applicant.
A written tenancy agreement was entered into. The agreement recorded a weekly rent of $780 and a bond of $3,120. The tenancy was intended to commence on 17 January 2026.
[The tenant/s] paid the bond and one week’s rent in advance. Ms Goldsworthy provided [The tenant/s] with the keys to the property on or about 16 January 2026 shortly before the tenancy commencement date.
[The tenant/s] advised that she intended to move into the property gradually over a short period as she was transitioning from her previous accommodation.
[The tenant/s] said she noticed maintenance issues upon moving into the property, including concerns about the shower door and toilet seat. She observed a number of issues which led her to believe the property had not yet been properly prepared for a new tenant.
These issues included concerns about the cleanliness and tidiness of the premises, debris and packaging materials associated with renovation work, dead insects in window blinds, and items left on the premises including cardboard boxes and rubbish.
[The tenant/s] contacted Ms Goldsworthy to raise these concerns. During the course of that communication Ms Goldsworthy told [The tenant/s] that if she was unhappy with the property she would release her from the tenancy agreement.
[The tenant/s] said she was initially surprised by this response and would speak with her family before deciding how to proceed.
Later the same day [The tenant/s] informed Ms Goldsworthy that she accepted the offer to be released from the tenancy. She attended the property shortly afterwards intending to return the keys.
[The tenant/s] said that when she arrived, Ms Goldsworthy had already attended the property and entered the premises. [The tenant/s] estimated that Ms Goldsworthy attended the property approximately 30 minutes after their conversation.
Ms Goldsworthy did not accept the precise timeframe suggested by [The tenant/s] but did not dispute that she returned to the property shortly afterwards.
Importantly, following this event [The tenant/s] did not move into the property and did not spend any night at the premises.
By this time Ms Goldsworthy had resumed possession of the property and began addressing issues at the premises and making arrangements to secure another tenant.
The property was subsequently re-let and a new tenant commenced a tenancy on 26 January 2026.
A dispute then arose between the parties regarding the financial consequences of the termination of the tenancy.
[The tenant/s] maintained that the tenancy had been terminated by unconditional agreement when Ms Goldsworthy offered to release her and she accepted that offer. [The tenant/s] asked Ms Goldworthy to refund the one-week rent paid in advance and her bond without success.
Ms Goldsworthy maintained that although she was willing to release [The tenant/s] from the tenancy, the usual process for early termination of a fixed- term tenancy applied, including the requirement that a replacement tenant be found.
On 27 January 2026, [The tenant/s] filed the present application with the Tribunal seeking various orders including the return of rent and bond and compensation. Compensation and exemplary damages
[The tenant/s] also seeks compensation and exemplary damages.
[The tenant/s] explained during the hearing that the situation had caused her and her family considerable distress. She described the difficulties she faced after the tenancy did not proceed and the impact this had on her living arrangements.
I accept that the circumstances were stressful for [The tenant/s]. However, the Tribunal may only award compensation where the requirements of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”) are satisfied.
Compensation under section 77(2)(n) of the Act generally requires proof that a party has suffered loss as a result of a breach of the Act or the tenancy agreement.
In this case [The tenant/s] did not move into the property and did not remain in occupation of the premises. The tenancy ended almost immediately after commencement, following her understanding that she would be released from the tenancy.
Because [The tenant/s] did not reside in the property and the tenancy ended almost immediately, the evidence does not establish a compensable loss arising from any alleged breach. Even if Ms Goldsworthy had not had the property ready for possession, the normal process of issuing a 14-day notice to remedy must be followed.
While I accept that the situation caused [The tenant/s] emotional stress, the Act does not provide for compensation for distress in circumstances where, in my view, [The tenant/s] brought upon herself. [The tenant/s] would have a strong case for compensation for emotional stress and other claims if she had continued the tenancy.
[The tenant/s] also seeks exemplary damages. But exemplary damages may only be awarded where a landlord has committed one of the unlawful acts specified in the Act. On the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that Ms Goldsworthy committed an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded.
For these reasons, [The tenant/s] claims for compensation and exemplary damages are dismissed.
This leaves me to now turn to the principal issue for determination. Issue
The principal issue for determination is whether the fixed-term tenancy was terminated by unconditional agreement between the parties.
If the tenancy was terminated unconditionally, [The tenant/s] would have no ongoing liability under the tenancy agreement. In that circumstance, Ms Goldsworthy would be required to refund the rent paid in advance, less one day’s rent for 17 January 2026, and the bond would be refunded to [The tenant/s] in full.
However, if the termination of the 12-month fixed-term tenancy was conditional upon the usual process of securing a replacement tenant, [The tenant/s] would remain liable for rent from 17 January 2026 until the commencement of the new tenancy on 26 January 2026. This would amount to nine days’ rent, together with any reasonable costs incurred in re-letting the property. [The tenant/s] submissions
[The tenant/s] submits that the tenancy ended when Ms Goldsworthy offered to release her from the tenancy and she accepted that offer.
[The tenant/s] says she received the keys shortly before the tenancy was due to commence and attended the property intending to begin moving into the premises with her children.
[The tenant/s] says that when she inspected the property more closely she became concerned about the condition of the premises and believed the property was not ready for occupation.
[The tenant/s] provided photographs and video recordings which she says show dust, debris and other items associated with recent renovation work, as well as rubbish and packaging materials left at the property.
[The tenant/s] also referred to dead insects in the kitchen blinds and raised concerns about certain fixtures including the toilet seat and the shower door.
[The tenant/s] says she contacted Ms Goldsworthy to raise these concerns via WhatsApp on 17 January 2026 at 12.31pm. She says that during that communication Ms Goldsworthy replied at 12.33pm and stated “Hey [tenant], if your (sic) not happy with the place I am happy to release you from the agreement.”
[The tenant/s] says she told Ms Goldsworthy, via WhatsApp, that she would speak with her family before making a decision at 12.39pm. She later confirmed that she accepted the offer to be released from the tenancy at 1.22pm on 17 January 2026: “Hi Tegan, I will take you up on the offer to release me from the tenancy. What is the next step? Will Stephanie, [the property manager,] organise the paperwork tomorrow and refund of the one weeks advance and four weeks bond or you?”
Within seconds, Ms Goldsworthy replied “You can contact Stephanie from here – thanks.”
[The tenant/s] says she then attended the property shortly afterwards to return the keys. She says when she arrived Ms Goldsworthy had already attended the property and entered the premises.
[The tenant/s] submits that this conduct confirmed her understanding that the tenancy had ended because Ms Goldsworthy had taken possession of the property.
[The tenant/s] says that on or about 21 January 2026 she received an email from Ms Goldsworthy stating that she remained responsible for the tenancy until a replacement tenant was found. There were further email exchanges between the parties.
[The tenant/s] submits that this position was inconsistent with the earlier agreement to release her from the tenancy and that no such condition had been communicated at the time the offer was made.
[The tenant/s] therefore submits that the tenancy ended by mutual agreement on the day the offer was made and accepted. Ms Goldsworthy’s submissions
Ms Goldsworthy disputes [The tenant/s] claims.
Ms Goldsworthy says that [The tenant/s] viewed the property before applying for the tenancy and therefore had the opportunity to assess the condition of the premises before entering into the tenancy agreement.
Ms Goldsworthy says that shortly after [The tenant/s] received the keys she began raising a number of issues about the property.
Ms Goldsworthy says that some of the matters raised were minor maintenance issues and she had arranged for tradespeople to attend to address those concerns.
Ms Goldsworthy says that [The tenant/s] continued to raise additional concerns before moving into the property.
Ms Goldsworthy says she formed the view that [The tenant/s] no longer wished to proceed with the tenancy.
Ms Goldsworthy accepts that she told [The tenant/s] that if she was unhappy with the property she would release her from the tenancy.
However, Ms Goldsworthy says that any release from the tenancy was intended to occur in accordance with the usual process for early termination of a fixed- term tenancy.
Ms Goldsworthy says this meant that [The tenant/s] would remain responsible for the tenancy until a replacement tenant was found.
Ms Goldsworthy says that she subsequently took steps to secure another tenant and that a replacement tenant commenced a tenancy on or about 26 January 2026, which is 9 days later.
Ms Goldsworthy says she incurred costs associated with re-letting the property and seeks to recover those costs and rent arrears to 25 January 2026. Analysis
The central issue in this case is whether the fixed-term tenancy was terminated by an unconditional agreement between the parties.
The Tribunal determines this issue by applying ordinary contractual principles. A tenancy agreement is a contract and the creation or termination of contractual obligations is assessed by reference to whether there was an offer, acceptance of that offer, and an intention to create legal consequences. The Tribunal must consider the parties’ communications objectively and determine what a reasonable person in the position of the parties would have understood those communications to mean.
I consider it relevant to the surrounding circumstances that the evidence indicates the premises had not yet been fully prepared for occupation when [The tenant/s] received the keys to the property on 17 January 2026. The photographs provided by [The tenant/s] show dust, debris and other items associated with recent renovation work. During the hearing Ms Goldsworthy acknowledged that renovation work had recently been completed and accepted that she had expected tradespeople to clean after themselves but had not personally checked that this had occurred.
In those circumstances, it is understandable that [The tenant/s] raised concerns about the cleanliness and tidiness of the property. A tenant who has just received possession of a property would reasonably expect the premises to be in a clean and tidy condition and ready for occupation. The fact that [The tenant/s] raised those concerns provides the context in which Ms Goldsworthy responded by stating that she was prepared to release [The tenant/s] from the tenancy if she was unhappy with the property.
When the communications between the parties are viewed against that background, Ms Goldsworthy’s statement that she was prepared to release [The tenant/s] from the tenancy is reasonably understood as a straightforward offer to end the tenancy rather than the beginning of a conditional process dependent on the usual re-letting arrangements for a fixed-term tenancy.
During the course of those communications Ms Goldsworthy stated that if [The tenant/s] was unhappy with the property she was prepared to release her from the tenancy. The parties’ communications were conducted by electronic messaging. The timing of the exchange is recorded in the material before me.
The evidence shows that Ms Goldsworthy communicated the offer to release [The tenant/s] from the tenancy at approximately 12.33 pm on 17 January 2026.
[The tenant/s] subsequently accepted that offer at 1.22 pm on the same day.
Between 12.33 pm and the time of [The tenant/s] acceptance at 1.22 pm there is no indication in the communications that Ms Goldsworthy attached any conditions to the proposed release from the tenancy.
In particular, there is no reference during that exchange to the usual process associated with early termination of a fixed-term tenancy, including the requirement that a replacement tenant be found and the exiting tenant may be responsible for the re-let costs.
Objectively viewed, Ms Goldsworthy's communication was an offer to release [The tenant/s] from the tenancy without qualification. [The tenant/s] then accepted that offer shortly afterwards.
Once that offer was accepted, an agreement was formed between the parties that the tenancy would come to an end.
Several days later, on or about 21 January 2026, Ms Goldsworthy sent an email to [The tenant/s] referring to the process for early termination of a fixed-term tenancy and indicating that [The tenant/s] would remain responsible for the tenancy until a replacement tenant was found.
However, that email was sent after [The tenant/s] had already accepted the earlier offer to be released from the tenancy. By that stage the agreement between the parties had already been concluded.
A party cannot retrospectively attach conditions to an agreement that has already been formed until the other party agrees to them. That is not the case here.
[The tenant/s] also contacted the property manager shortly after accepting the offer, as instructed by Ms Goldsworthy. On the evidence before me, I accept that [The tenant/s] did so in order to understand the process for obtaining the return of her rent in advance and bond. [The tenant/s] contact of the property manager was not, in my view, a condition to release [The tenant/s] from the fixed-term tenancy.
In my view, [The tenant/s] contact with the property manager does not indicate that she understood the release from the tenancy to be conditional upon the landlord securing a replacement tenant.
If Ms Goldsworthy intended the release to be conditional upon the usual process for terminating a fixed-term tenancy early, it would have been expected that such a condition would be clearly communicated at the time the offer was made. No such condition was communicated before [The tenant/s] accepted the offer.
I accept that a professional property manager would likely have explained that a tenant remains liable for rent until a replacement tenant is found. However, Ms Goldsworthy was managing the property herself at the relevant time. It is more likely than not that she was not fully aware that the statement she made amounted to an unconditional offer to release [The tenant/s] from the tenancy.
That does not alter the objective meaning of the communication that was made to [The tenant/s]. The conduct of the parties following the exchange also supports the conclusion that the tenancy had come to an end.
[The tenant/s] gave evidence that shortly after accepting the offer, she attended the property to return the keys. On arrival, she saw Ms Goldsworthy had already attended the premises and entered the property.
[The tenant/s] estimated that this occurred approximately 30 minutes after the exchange between them.
Ms Goldsworthy did not accept the precise timeframe suggested by [The tenant/s] but did not dispute that she returned to the premises shortly afterwards.
In my view, Ms Goldsworthy’s attendance at the property shortly after the agreement was reached is consistent with the understanding that the tenancy had come to an end and that possession had effectively reverted to the landlord.
Taking all of the evidence into account, I am satisfied that Ms Goldsworthy offered to release [The tenant/s] from the tenancy with no conditions whatsoever and that [The tenant/s] accepted that offer. Conclusion
I therefore find that the tenancy was terminated by unconditional agreement between the parties.
[The tenant/s] accepted that she remained liable for rent for 17 January 2026, being the first day of the tenancy. That is a proper concession in my view.
Accordingly, [The tenant/s] is liable for one day’s rent only.
The balance of the rent paid in advance must therefore be refunded to [The tenant/s].
The bond is to be refunded to [The tenant/s] in full through the Bond Centre. Filing fee
Because [The tenant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must reimburse the filing fee. Name suppression
Because [The tenant/s] has substantially succeeded in the proceedings, I have granted name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5432190 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 2, 840 Whangaparaoa Road, Manly,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5432190 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 2, 840 Whangaparaoa Road, Manly,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions