Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5440449 — Exemplary damages at 7 Palm Drive, Shirley, Christchurch 8052
Published 30 March 2026 · Application 5440449
Tenant favoured
- Exemplary damages
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Tenant favoured
From published order
Location
Christchurch
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
R Armstrong
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $1,228.00
- Total balance for Landlord to pay Tenant
- $1,228.00
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exemplary damages | $1,200.00 | Exemplary damages | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $1,228.00 | ||
| Total payable by Landlord to Tenant | $1,228.00 |
Claims and awards for application 5440449 — net $1,228.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Exemplary damages
- Amount
- $1,200.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Tenant $1,228.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant
Tenant $1,228.00
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Jan Birdling must pay Ranui Jane Hohaia $1,228.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
- The tenant may deduct this award from the rent if necessary.
Reasons
- The hearing was conducted by video conference. Only the tenant attended.
- The tenant has applied for exemplary damages under s60AA of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
- Under s60AA, a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
- Breaching this obligation without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00.
- Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest.
- This tenancy began in June 2025 and was for a six-month fixed term. It became periodic in December.
- On 9 February 2026, the landlord served a notice on the tenant purporting to terminate the tenancy after 21 days. The notice was invalid. Tenants can give 21 days notice to terminate a periodic tenancy. Without cause, landlords must give at least 90 days notice.
- The notice refers to late payment of rent and power charges. That in no way justifies the notice. Landlords have remedies available to them for a tenant’s breach of their obligations. Giving 21 days notice of termination is not one of them.
- The tenant is knowledgeable of the Act. She was aware that the notice was invalid, and she promptly advised the landlord to check the Act as to her legal rights.
- On 27 March, the landlord filed a statement with the Tribunal seeking to justify her actions. She described the notice as “reasonable, fair and correctly issued”. Either she did not heed the tenant’s advice to check the Act for her legal rights or she believes that she can hoodwink the Tribunal.
- The landlord has intentionally served an invalid termination notice on the tenant and she has doubled down on her wrongful act. Whether she was or is aware of its wrongfulness is moot because the law assumes everyone to know the law. Certainly, landlords should be aware of the law relating to termination of a tenancy. A telephone call to Tenancy Services is all that’s needed if they are in any doubt.
- It seems that the premises were the landlord’s home, and she has been renting them out for the past four years. I note that a previous tenant took the landlord to the Tribunal for not paying the bond to the Bond Centre. That resulted in an award of $500 exemplary damages against her. The landlord is not inexperienced.
- The tenant was not taken in by the notice, but she was, understandably, shocked and upset by it. In my view there should be an award of exemplary damages to mark the seriousness of the act. Parliament has set the maximum award high at $6,500 for a reason. This sort of behaviour must be discouraged.
- The tenant knew her rights which has, fortunately for the landlord, mitigated the effect of the notice. An award of $1,200 is a proportionate award in this case. Other Issues
- I recognised other issues with this tenancy which I raised with the tenant.
- One is that the tenancy agreement requires the tenant to pay $40 per week for power but “this could change depending on usage”. There is an obvious problem with that. The tenant should pay only for the power that she uses and so having a charge that varies at the landlord’s discretion is contrary to the Act.
- Another issue is that the power is “shared”. The tenant explained that it is shared with a tenant who occupies another part of the house. The tenant said that when the tenancy began, the door between her part of the house and the other part had no lock on it. She had to insist that one was put on.
- To make things worse, the landlord has refused to provide copies of the power bills to the tenant and there is no check meter for either part of the house. This is not acceptable because it results in potential unfairness to the tenant. It also results in a potentially bigger problem for the landlord because she may well have difficulty justifying the charges for power that she imposes on the tenant.
- There is a still more serious potential issue here. To all appearances the house is a single residential dwelling. This raises questions as to when and how it became two separate dwellings and whether that is lawful?
- The Act deals with the consequences of allowing unlawful residential premises to be occupied as rented premises. The extreme end of the consequences is that the landlord could be required to repay to the tenant all the rent that the tenant has paid.
- Finally, I note that the landlord lodged the bond with the Bond Centre on 11 March 2026. That is well outside the 23 working days within which it should have been lodged. That may well be another unlawful act.
- I would encourage the landlord to address these issues immediately. The result of not doing so could make a serious situation more so. I am especially concerned about the safety of those occupying the house. If the house has been converted to two separate households without the necessary consents, their safety could be at risk.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s15, s60AA
Key findings
- Dispute theme: exemplary damages
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5440449?
The tribunal order states: Jan Birdling must pay Ranui Jane Hohaia $1,228.00 immediately, calculated as
How much money was awarded in case 5440449?
Property Damage: $1,200.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5440449?
The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5440449?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13367924-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.