Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5434768 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 712, 20 Park Avenue, Ellerslie, Auckland 1051
Published 5 May 2026 · Application 5434768
Landlord favoured
- Exemplary damages
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
- $4,328.00
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $4,328.00
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compensation | $2,500.00 | Compensation | |
| Exemplary Damages | $1,800.00 | Exemplary Damages | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $4,328.00 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $4,328.00 |
Claims and awards for application 5434768 — net $4,328.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Compensation
- Amount
- $2,500.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Compensation
Exemplary Damages
- Amount
- $1,800.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Exemplary Damages
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Landlord $4,328.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $4,328.00
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Victoria Chloe Elliott and Brent Nicholas Taylor must pay Staircase Property Management Limited As Agents For Sally Aberhart $4,328.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
- This tenancy commenced on 1 May 2025 and ended on 3 November 2025, when it was terminated by the Tenancy Tribunal.
- The applicant seeks: a)$1,000 for an insurance excess relating to methamphetamine decontamination; and b)exemplary damages against the tenants.
- One of the respondents, Victoria Elliott, attended the hearing by telephone. The second respondent did not attend.
- In support of the application, the applicant provided two methamphetamine contamination test results dated 9 May and 3 November. Both tests showed the presence of methamphetamine contamination.
- Photographs provided by the applicant show a significant amount of rubbish abandoned at the property, damage, including what appears to be drug paraphernalia.
- The respondent who attended submitted that she was subject to a monitoring bracelet and regular drug testing as part of sentencing conditions, and that any methamphetamine consumption at the property was the responsibility of the co- tenant.
- Parties to a tenancy agreement are jointly and severally liable. This means each tenant is individually responsible for the full amount of any liability, as well as being collectively responsible with the other tenant.
Are the respondents liable for meth decontamination?
- The absence of pre-tenancy methamphetamine testing is fatal to an application for compensation relating to methamphetamine remediation and testing. This position is confirmed in Eren Limited v Martin and Kukuruzsnayak[2021] NZDC 15210, Brooking and Hodges v Imrie [2021] NZDC 16976, and Landlord v Reardon [2022] NZTT 4322786.
- The applicant acknowledged that no pre-tenancy testing was carried out.
- Accordingly, I am unable to find that the tenants are liable for the methamphetamine decontamination costs.
- However, the evidence clearly establishes that the property was left in a condition that breached the tenants’ obligations under section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, which requires tenants to remove all rubbish and leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
- I am satisfied that the landlord reasonably incurred costs to remedy this breach and an award of $2500.00 is therefore appropriate.
Exemplary damages?
- The applicant submitted that there were frequent police callouts to the tenancy address, which was located within a hotel building, as well as arrests and ongoing drug-related issues. While no corroborating evidence was provided, these claims were not denied by the respondent and the photographic evidence showed the presence of unsociable living conditions and the presence of drug paraphernalia.
- The respondent maintained that any unlawful activity was likely attributable to the co-tenant.
- I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the tenants breached section 40(2)(b) of the Act, which prohibits tenants from using, or permitting the premises to be used, for any unlawful purpose.
- Such conduct constitutes an unlawful act under section 40(3A)(c), for which exemplary damages of up to $1,800 may be awarded.
- In Auckland City Council v Blundell, Cooke P described exemplary damages as “exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty [party] and others” and “punitive because they are meant to punish,” likening them to a fine, although paid to the person affected by the conduct.
- The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 designates certain breaches as unlawful acts for which exemplary damages may be awarded, reflecting a clear policy intent to uphold minimum standards in the rental market and deter conduct that undermines those standards.
- To award exemplary damages, I must be satisfied that the conduct was intentional. I am so satisfied. I am also satisfied that the impact on the applicant was significant, including disruption during the tenancy and remediation required at its conclusion. There is a strong public interest in protecting landlords’ property from illegal and damaging behaviour.
- In these circumstances, it is appropriate to award exemplary damages in the maximum sum of $1,800. Filing Fee:
- As the applicant has been substantially successful, the application filing fee is awarded. H Ben Fayed 05 May 2026
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s40(1), s40(2), s40(3A)
Key findings
- Dispute theme: exemplary damages
Property management
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5434768?
The tribunal order states: Victoria Chloe Elliott and Brent Nicholas Taylor must pay Staircase Property
How much money was awarded in case 5434768?
Compensation: $2,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,800.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5434768?
The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5434768?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13548724-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.