What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5432658 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5432658?

Compensation: breach of right to qui…: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5432658?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5432658?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13228905-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5432658 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5432658?

Compensation: breach of right to qui…: $350.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $800.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5432658?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5432658?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13228905-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

28 Cranby Crescent, Onekawa, Napier 4110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5432658 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5432658. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: retaliatory notice	$800.00		retaliatory notice
Compensation: breach of right to quiet enjoyment	$350.00		breach of right to quiet enjoyment

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5432658. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Exemplary damages: retaliatory notice	$800.00		retaliatory notice
Compensation: breach of right to quiet enjoyment	$350.00		breach of right to quiet enjoyment

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Notice of Termination issued to the tenant by the landlord dated 27 January 2026 is declared to be retaliatory and of no effect.
Michael Marsh and Joel Vincent Marsh as Trustees for The M. Marsh Family Trust must pay

Reasons

Introduction

On 18 February 2026 Michael Marsh, on behalf of the landlords, requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for 25 February. I advised the Registry on that date that I would grant an adjournment and would later issue an Order with reasons.
On 24 February the adjournment Order was issued.
Neither party received confirmation that the hearing would be adjourned or the adjournment Order itself and both appeared on the 25 th . The hearing was able to go ahead, albeit with a late start.
Again, my apologies to the parties for the confusion. Issues
The questions the Tribunal needs to answer are: a. was the notice of termination given to the tenant by the landlord on 27

January 2026 retaliatory?

b. if so, should compensation or exemplary damages be awarded? c. should the tenant be compensated for breach of her right to quiet enjoyment of the premises? Background

The Tribunal made an Order on 27 November 2025 (application 5315459), that the landlords do some repair work at the premises and that the landlord pay compensation and exemplary damages to the tenant.
On 27 January 2026 the landlord gave the tenant 90 days’ notice that the tenancy would end on 28 April 2026. The notice contained conditions that on termination: • “The garden needs to be put back into lawn as per prior to the tenancy • All vegetation needs to be removed from the woodshed at the rear of the property • Woodshed door reattached • At 4pm on the 28 th April 2026 there will be a property inspection and keys handed back to the landlord.”
The Notice was served by Mr Marsh coming to the premises. He required that [The tenant/s] sign the termination notice.
Mr Marsh says he simply wanted the tenant’s signature as confirmation that she had received the notice. [The tenant/s] interpreted his insistence that she sign it, as requiring that she agree to the conditions attached to the notice, which she did not accept were correct.
A heated conversation followed, which was captured by the tenant’s security camera. The footage has been provided in evidence.
On the same day, the tenant brought this application, asking that the termination notice be set aside as retaliatory and that exemplary damages and compensation be awarded. Parties’ positions
The tenant says that Mr Marsh was obviously upset with her because of the outcome of her previous Tribunal application. She says that was the reason she was given the notice of termination. She says Mr Marsh was angry, aggressive and intimidating when he came to deliver the notice and that the incident was very unsettling for she and her daughter.
Mr Marsh says that the landlord trust has been intending the sell the property for some time. He has provided in evidence a resolution of the trustees from November 2025 noting the suggestion that this and two other residential rental properties owned by the trust be sold. The landlord has provided in evidence a statement from a real estate agent confirming that on 11 November 2025 he was asked to provide an appraisal for those properties, which was updated on 12 January 2026.
Mr Marsh’s evidence is that the tenant knew that the landlords’ intention had been to sell the premises to the church that had bought the adjoining property from the trust. He says that when that sale did not eventuate, the tenant was told the property would be sold anyway.
The tenant says she knew about the intended sale to the church and that it had not gone ahead.

Was the Notice retaliatory?

A notice of termination is retaliatory where, “...in giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or proposed exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority, or remedy conferred on the tenant by the tenancy agreement or by this or any other Act or any complaint by the tenant against the landlord relating to the tenancy.” 1
Exercise of those rights by a tenant does not need to be the only motivation for a termination notice being given, for it to be considered retaliatory.
There is a close connection in time between the Tribunal having upheld claims brought by the tenant and the landlord acting to end the tenancy. That does not 1 S.54(2)(a) RTA of itself prove that the notice was retaliatory but it does raise legitimate questions about the connection.
I find it proved that the trustees had discussed selling the property and had a real estate agent provide an appraisal in November 2025 and an update in January 2026.
I nevertheless find that in giving [The tenant/s] the notice of termination on 27 January, the landlords were at least partly motivated by her actions in bringing the Tribunal claim against them.
I make that finding for the following reasons: a. there is no evidence that the landlords have progressed their intention to sell the 3 rental properties beyond getting the appraisals done in November 2025 and January 2026; b. there is no evidence of the trustees having passed a resolution to put the properties on the market, which would be required before any sale; c. the landlords have not given the tenant the required notice of their intention to sell the property 2 ; d. no notice of termination has been given to the tenants of the other 2 properties the landlords say they intend to sell; e. Mr Marsh clearly remains upset at [The tenant/s] about the previous claims. During their exchange when delivering the termination notice he repeatedly called her a liar, with reference to those claims. In his response to this application, Mr Marsh was at pains to prove that she was; f. when [The tenant/s] suggested that her tenancy was being ended in retaliation for her earlier claims, Mr Marsh insisted it wasn’t but said, “...maybe this is the choice you make..”, which seems to imply a link between her actions and the termination notice. g. the explanation given by Mr Marsh at the hearing about the trustees’ decision to sell the property (and the other properties owned by the trust) does not seem to have been given to [The tenant/s] at any stage when she questioned the notice, although Mr Marsh did clearly express his understanding that [The tenant/s] intends to move out anyway.

Should Exemplary damages be awarded?

Giving a retaliatory notice is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages of up to $6,500.00 may be awarded. 2 See s.47(1) RTA
The Tribunal must consider whether the unlawful act was committed intentionally and must take into account: a.the intent of that person in committing the unlawful act; and 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. 3
I find that the notice was given intentionally (it is the act itself, rather than an intention to act unlawfully, that is relevant).
The effect of the notice being given was clearly significant and unsettling to the tenant. The tenant has right to be able to raise legitimate issues about the tenancy without fear of losing her tenancy as a consequence.
The public interest also requires that tenants be able to exercise legitimate rights without fear of retribution.
It is a feature of this case that the tenant had an understanding of the possibility the landlords would want to sell the property at some stage. The tenant herself wants the tenancy to end but says she is entitled not to have the tenancy ended in retaliatory circumstances, so she can give 21 days’ notice to end the tenancy once she finds alterative accommodation.
That is something of a mitigating factor in terms of the effect on the tenant of the termination notice being given.
I take into account as well that the findings made in the Tribunal’s previous Order cannot mean that the landlords are forever prevented from giving notice to end the tenancy for fear of it being seen as retaliatory.
The evidence does suggest a general intention by the landlords to sell the property, which they are entitled to do. It is the timing of the notice that I find partly motivated by a response to the tenant’s claims.
Setting the notice aside will not prevent the landlords from selling the property. If the property is sold, the landlords can give 42 days’ notice of termination once an unconditional sale contract is in place and vacant possession is required. 4 That is unlikely to be considered retaliatory.
I note Mr Marsh’s evidence that the landlords thought it would be preferable for the tenant to have 90 days’ notice of termination now, rather than being given 42 days’ notice once a sale is achieved, so she didn’t have to put up with open homes etc. There is no suggestion the tenant was asked her views about that.
Weighing those considerations I find that it would be just to make a modest award of exemplary damages (compared to the maximum specified). The 3 S.109(3) RTA 4 S.51(2)(b) RTA tenant wants to move out and the effect of this Order is that she will not, at this stage, be required to vacate under a termination notice from the landlord. Was the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of the premises breached?
A landlord must not, “.....cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.” 5
The tenant characterises Mr Marsh’s conduct when delivering the notice as aggressive, harassing and intimidating.
The camera footage shows that Ms Marsh was “elevated” but I did not see evidence of intentionally threatening or intimidating behaviour. [The tenant/s] pursued the conversation down the drive as Mr Marsh was leaving.
What is clear from that evidence, is Mr Marsh’s continuing insistence that [The tenant/s] sign the notice of termination. A termination notice can be served by post, by being placed in the mailbox or attached to the door or by e-mail, as well as being delivered personally. 6 There is no requirement that a tenant sign a termination notice.
What is also apparent is that when it became clear that [The tenant/s] did not want to sign the notice and questioned whether it was retaliatory, Mr Marsh responded by insulting her calling her a liar and arguing with her strongly before leaving.
In the circumstances of this tenancy, I do not understand what made Mr Marsh think it was a good idea to turn up at the premises unannounced to serve the notice on [The tenant/s] personally.
This is [The tenant/s]’s home. She should not be confronted in that way at her doorstep. There was no justification for Mr Marsh’s continuing demand that she sign the termination notice. He knew she thought it was retaliatory and contained unfair conditions. When she stood up for herself she was insulted, shouted at and called a liar.
In my view, that amounts to a serious breach of [The tenant/s]’s right to quiet enjoyment of the premises. It was understandably upsetting for her. A modest award of compensation is fair.
This was a one off situation. While Mr Marsh’s actions were very inappropriate and upsetting for the tenant, I do not interpret those actions as intentionally threatening or delibertaly intimidating or to constitute part of a pattern of 5 S.38(2) RTA 6 S.136 RTA behaviour amounting to harassment, for which exemplary damages as well as compensation could be awarded. 7
Because the tenant has succeeded with her claim I reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5432658 — Exemplary damages at 28 Cranby Crescent, Onekawa, Napier 4110

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5432658 — Exemplary damages at 28 Cranby Crescent, Onekawa, Napier 4110

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

January 2026 retaliatory?

Was the Notice retaliatory?

Should Exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

January 2026 retaliatory?

Was the Notice retaliatory?

Should Exemplary damages be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions