How much money was awarded in case 5435475?

Costs (Travel To Hearing: $15.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5435475?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5435475?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13870404-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5435475?

Costs (Travel To Hearing: $15.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5435475?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5435475?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13870404-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5435475 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5435475 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5435475 — net $43.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Costs (Travel to hearing	$15.00	Costs (Travel to hearing
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$43.00
Bond	$1,960.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$43.00

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details.

[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $43.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,960.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.

The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

The tenant attended the in-person hearing today. The landlord did not attend and requested an adjournment at about 1am this morning. The landlord said they would be travelling overseas during the hearing.

A review of the file shows that this is not the first adjournment request in these applications – there have been two previous adjournments. There was also a last-minute adjournment granted to the landlord in a related application heard before me last year.

In the adjournment request, the landlord said the hearing had been scheduled on short notice. The notice of hearing was emailed to the landlord on 30 June 2026. Reminder messages were sent on 3 and 7 July 2026 at 7am. It is unclear why the landlord waited until early this morning to advise they were travelling overseas. Costs Award

The tenant no doubt attended today with the reasonable expectation that the long-running issues relating to this tenancy would finally be resolved. She incurred the cost of travelling here from her home by car, a journey of about 15km.

The Tribunal has a limited jurisdiction to award costs pursuant to section 102 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. However, it can do so where any applicant to the Tribunal, after receiving notice of the hearing, fails to attend the hearing without good cause.

The landlord might say they have “good cause” for their failure to attend, because they are travelling. However, late adjournment requests by the landlord are now something of a pattern. In November 2025 (before me) and in June 2026 (before Adjudicator Aiolupotea) the exact same reason for the adjournment request (family harm) was given. Both parties have played their part to a degree: the tenant failed to attend a remote hearing in May 2026, although the hearing did not proceed because the landlord could not hear the adjudicator.

The Tribunal’s patience with delays caused by the parties is exhausted. I award travel costs against the landlord for today’s hearing in the sum of $15.00.

The parties can expect that, if any further hearings are held, and if they fail to attend, a costs award will follow. Bond Refund

As to the substantive applications, the tenant is entitled to the return of the remaining bond money. The landlord’s application is dismissed for want of proof.

If the landlord applies for a rehearing, as they have indicated they will, the landlord must provide evidential support for their claims.

For example, no water invoice seems to have been provided to support the claim for $500.00 in water charges. The claim for loss of rental income has not been explained, and there is no photographic evidence to support the “smoking related clean up”. Nor is it clear which provision is relied on for compensation of $2,005.74 for “unlawful occupation after expiry” of the tenant’s termination notice. The basis for the landlord’s claim for exemplary damages of $3,000.00 is not addressed. Section 109 sets out the procedural basis for an award of exemplary damages, it does not identify the “unlawful act” which provides the substantive legal grounds for an award.

If these claims are not explained in the rehearing application, assuming one is submitted in time, the rehearing request may be dismissed without a hearing. Filing Fee and Name Suppression

The tenant is awarded the filing fee.

Suppression is granted to both parties to ensure consistency with previous orders.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5435475 — net $43.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Costs (Travel to hearing	$15.00	Costs (Travel to hearing
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$43.00
Bond	$1,960.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$43.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] must pay [The tenant/s] $43.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,960.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The tenant/s] immediately.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

The tenant attended the in-person hearing today. The landlord did not attend and requested an adjournment at about 1am this morning. The landlord said they would be travelling overseas during the hearing.
A review of the file shows that this is not the first adjournment request in these applications – there have been two previous adjournments. There was also a last-minute adjournment granted to the landlord in a related application heard before me last year.
In the adjournment request, the landlord said the hearing had been scheduled on short notice. The notice of hearing was emailed to the landlord on 30 June 2026. Reminder messages were sent on 3 and 7 July 2026 at 7am. It is unclear why the landlord waited until early this morning to advise they were travelling overseas. Costs Award
The tenant no doubt attended today with the reasonable expectation that the long-running issues relating to this tenancy would finally be resolved. She incurred the cost of travelling here from her home by car, a journey of about 15km.
The Tribunal has a limited jurisdiction to award costs pursuant to section 102 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. However, it can do so where any applicant to the Tribunal, after receiving notice of the hearing, fails to attend the hearing without good cause.
The landlord might say they have “good cause” for their failure to attend, because they are travelling. However, late adjournment requests by the landlord are now something of a pattern. In November 2025 (before me) and in June 2026 (before Adjudicator Aiolupotea) the exact same reason for the adjournment request (family harm) was given. Both parties have played their part to a degree: the tenant failed to attend a remote hearing in May 2026, although the hearing did not proceed because the landlord could not hear the adjudicator.
The Tribunal’s patience with delays caused by the parties is exhausted. I award travel costs against the landlord for today’s hearing in the sum of $15.00.
The parties can expect that, if any further hearings are held, and if they fail to attend, a costs award will follow. Bond Refund
As to the substantive applications, the tenant is entitled to the return of the remaining bond money. The landlord’s application is dismissed for want of proof.
If the landlord applies for a rehearing, as they have indicated they will, the landlord must provide evidential support for their claims.
For example, no water invoice seems to have been provided to support the claim for $500.00 in water charges. The claim for loss of rental income has not been explained, and there is no photographic evidence to support the “smoking related clean up”. Nor is it clear which provision is relied on for compensation of $2,005.74 for “unlawful occupation after expiry” of the tenant’s termination notice. The basis for the landlord’s claim for exemplary damages of $3,000.00 is not addressed. Section 109 sets out the procedural basis for an award of exemplary damages, it does not identify the “unlawful act” which provides the substantive legal grounds for an award.
If these claims are not explained in the rehearing application, assuming one is submitted in time, the rehearing request may be dismissed without a hearing. Filing Fee and Name Suppression
The tenant is awarded the filing fee.
Suppression is granted to both parties to ensure consistency with previous orders.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5435475 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5435475 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions