Published tribunal order
Tenancy Tribunal case 5436714 — Exemplary damages
Decided 9 Jun 2026 · Published 9 Jun 2026 · Application 5436714
- Exemplary damages
Party names are redacted in the official published order.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
- West Management Limited As Agent For Nz Tourism Holdings Ltd must pay [The tenant/s] $3,878.00 as calculated in the table below:
Reasons
- On 5 February 2026 the tenant filed an application seeking refund of the bond and compensation and exemplary damages for failure to lodge the bond.
- The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. [Tenant] appeared for both tenants. The landlord failed to appear. The Tribunal was satisfied the landlord was properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in their absence. History of the tenancy
- The tenancy commenced on 24 October 2019.
- The tenancy ended on 28 February 2025. Relevant legal considerations
- The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
- With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
- That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
- This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
- As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre?
- [The tenant/s] claims the landlord failed to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time period and seek compensation and exemplary damages for the breach.
- The tenants said they paid the bond and rent in advance, as required by the terms of the tenancy agreement, to the property manager using electronic banking.
- A dispute arose between the parties during the tenancy which resulted in the decision of the Tenancy Tribunal being appealed and heard in the District Court. Following the release of the District Courts decision in late 2025 the tenant filed a one-party application for refund of the bond with the Bond Centre. The tenant said they were then told their bond was not held by the Bond Centre as it had not been lodged by their property manager or the landlord.
- The Tribunal received an email dated 27 May 2026 from the property manager which states: “Please find tenancy agreement with the property manager Kiri Barlow as full time Property manager at the time that the tenants move into 386 Henderson Valley Road. This women did not lodge the bonds on several properties including 386 Henderson Valley Rd. Kiri was told to leave after finding discrepancies in financial statements with missing rents and bond lodgement payments”.
- The tenant claims the property manager verbally told her the bond had been paid to the landlord. The tenant does not accept the landlord’s explanation for failure to lodge the bond and said they feel like their former property manager has been made a scape goat for the Agencies failure to comply with the requirements of the Acton. Analysis and decision
- A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) of the Act.
- Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Act.
- Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
- Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.
- Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
- The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the Act.
- The landlord failed to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
- Based on the evidence received, I am persuaded that the breach was intentional. Lodging bonds is a fundamental obligation for landlords and it is well recognised that bonds must lodged with the Bond Centre. The effect of this unlawful act was that the tenants’ bond money was not secure and the tenant may have difficulty in getting it back from their landlord at the end of the tenancy. There is a strong interest for tenants, landlords, and the public generally that there be a robust bond system, which requires landlords to lodge bonds as required.
- The Tribunal notes the landlord has previously been before the Tribunal for similar matters. The landlord has failed to implement robust processes and procedures to ensure bonds are appropriately dealt with and filed with the Bond Centre within the statutory time frame.
- In this case an award of exemplary damages only is appropriate. Having regards to those matters set out in section 109 of the Act, but in particular the interests of the affected party and the public interest, I have found it just to award $1,000.00 in exemplary damages. This reflects the gravity of the breach and the fact the landlord has previously been before the Tribunal for similar matters.
- The Tribunal awards the tenants $2850.00 compensation for the breach. This reflects the amount the bond paid to the landlord which has not yet been returned following the end of the tenancy. Other matters
- Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
- The tenants seek name suppression. Section 95A(1) of the Act provided that the Tribunal must, on application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, order that party’s name and identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
- The tenants have been wholly successful and are granted name suppression.