Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5436229 — Property damage at 44A Te Arawa Street, Orakei, Auckland 1071
Decided 16 Jun 2026 · Published 16 Jun 2026 · Application 5436229
- Property damage
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- The applicants details are suppressed.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $327.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- The tenancy ended on 20 December 2025. This dispute concerns a chip to the engineered stone benchtop in the kitchen.
- The respondent says that, while cleaning a small Weber barbecue plate in the kitchen, the plate slipped from his hands and struck the edge of the engineered stone benchtop, causing a chip. The applicant incurred a cost of $299 to repair the damage and seeks reimbursement of that amount from the tenant.
- In the context of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) and Tenancy Tribunal proceedings, damage falls into three categories: intentional damage, careless damage, and fair wear and tear. Accidental damage may arise as a subcategory within these categories, and its proper classification depends on the overall circumstances of the incident. Whether damage is accidental forms part of a holistic assessment of its nature and cause.
- Carelessness is not defined in the RTA. Its ordinary meaning includes a lack of care, negligence, or lack of forethought. It may also be described as heedlessness or thoughtlessness and can encompass situations involving an inadvertent lack of care. The applicable standard is that of an ordinary careful person. An ordinary careful person is not expected to take precautions against every foreseeable risk, but only against risks that are reasonably likely to occur: Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850. This approach was applied by the Tenancy Tribunal in Landlord v Tenant [2021] NZTT 4298321.
- Furthermore, the damage must be of a kind that can fairly and reasonably be regarded as arising naturally from the breach, or as a probable consequence of the breach. Damage that is too remote will not be compensable.
- I accept the tenant's submission that this type of activity can reasonably be expected to occur in a kitchen and that washing a barbecue plate or skillet is an ordinary use of that space. It is foreseeable that such items will be handled in a kitchen from time to time. However, I find that allowing the plate to slip and strike the edge of the benchtop can properly be characterised as heedless conduct and an inadvertent lack of care even if momentary. This finding should not be taken as suggesting that the act was deliberate or unusual. Accidents of this nature may occur from time to time in the course of ordinary domestic life. Nevertheless, for the purposes of assessing liability under the Act, it is properly classified as careless damage.
- On that basis, I am satisfied that the landlord has satisfied their burden of proof. The repair cost of $299 was reasonably incurred and is recoverable from the tenant.
- As the applicant has been successful, I have awarded the application filing fee and granted their request for suppression.