What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5455272 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5455272?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5455272?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5455272?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13364935-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5455272 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5455272?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5455272?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5455272?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13364935-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5455272 — Tenancy dispute

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s and tenant’s name and identifying details.
The application for a reduction of the fixed term tenancy is declined and the application dismissed.

Reasons

On 2 March 2026 the tenants filed an application seeking a reduction of the fixed term of the tenancy due to end on 1 August 2026.
The hearing proceeded in person. [Tenant 1] appeared for both tenants. [Landlord 1] and [Landlord 2], the landlords, appeared. 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. History of the tenancy
The Tribunal heard: a. The parties entered into a 12-month fixed term tenancy, commencing 1 August 2023 and expiring 1 August 2024. b. The tenancy was renewed for a further fixed term period ending 1 August 2025. c. Between 20 and 22 May 2025 the parties extended the tenancy agreement for a further fixed term period ending 1 August 2026. d. Sometime between 29 January 2026 and 2 February 2026 the tenants asked the landlords to move the tenancy from a fixed term tenancy to a periodic contract. This request was declined by the landlords. e. On 5 February 2026, the landlords completed a routine property inspection. During that visit, the tenant advised the landlord that they had secured finance and were looking to purchase a property. The tenants asked if they could assign the tenancy if they were successful in purchasing a property prior to the end of the fixed term. The landlords agreed in principal, providing certain conditions were met. f. On 6 February 2026, the tenants agreed to a Real Estate Agent completing a market appraisal of the property at the request of the landlord. g. On 9 February 2026, a market appraisal of the property was completed and the tenants again asked the landlords to consider moving the tenancy from a fixed term to a periodic contract. This request was declined. h. On 12 February 2026, the landlords contacted the tenants by telephone and advised them of their decision to place the property on the market. A further request by the tenants to move to a periodic tenancy was declined. i. On 14 February 2026, the landlord formally notified the tenants of their intention to place the property on the market. j. Between 19 and 23 February 2026 the parties arranged for marketing photographs of the property to be taken. k. On 23 February 2026, the tenants advised the landlords of [Tenant 2]’s cancer diagnosis. It was confirmed between the parties that the tenancy could be assigned provided a suitable tenant could be secured to take over the lease. l. On 25 February 2026: i. The property was listed for sale online. ii. The tenants listed the property for rent on a local [Town] social media platform. iii. The landlord spoke to a local Property Manager, who had been approached by the tenants to assist with finding a suitable party to whom they could assign the lease. The landlord advised the Property Manager the property was listed for sale. m. On 26 February 2026, the tenants wrote to the landlords formally requesting early termination of the tenancy. They asked for the fixed term to end on 31 March 2026. The landlords asked for time to consider the tenant’s position. n. On 27 February 2026, the landlord sought clarification from the tenant’s about their proposal for rent payments from 1 April 2026 to the end of the fixed term. o. The tenants responded by saying “While I understand you rely on the rent income, but our medical situation means we physically and financially cannot sustain this lease. Since the house is for sale and a replacement tenant isn’t an option, we need to reach an agreement or we will let the Tribunal decide on the grounds of severe hardship.” p. On 27 February 2026, the landlord sought confirmation from the tenants that they were proposing no rent would be paid from 1 April 2026. There was no response to this request for information. q. On 1 March 2026, the landlord wrote to the tenant declining their request to end the fixed term early. The landlords outlined: i. The loss of rent would cause them significant financial hardship. ii. They were happy for the lease to be assigned provided the tenants met the costs of assigning the tenancy and the new tenant was suitable and able to meet the rent obligations. iii. The landlords offered to help assist with assignment of the lease. iv. The landlords would avoid open homes and would only conduct viewings by appointments to reduce any inconvenience to the tenants. v. Confirmed the tenants had security of tenure until the end of the fixed term. vi. Confirmed the tenants could end the fixed term on 31 March 2026 provided rent and all other obligations under the tenancy were met. r. Between 2 and 5 March 2026, the tenants proposed a possible assignment of the lease to a third party. The terms of the assignment could not be agreed as there was a shortfall in rent and the fixed term exceeded the current terms of the contract. s. On 5 March 2026, the tenants told their landlords they had gone unconditional on a property and faced financial hardship if they had to meet their rent obligations alongside their mortgage obligations. t. Between 6 and 8 March 2026, a second prospective tenant was proposed for assignment of the lease. However, they later withdrew their interest saying they could not afford the rent.

Should the fixed term be reduced?

The tenants have applied for a reduction of the fixed term due to end on 1 August 2026.
Parties enter into a fixed term tenancy for security. For tenants this is security of tenure; they can be sure they can have a home for at least the agreed term. For landlords it is security of income; they can rely on a set amount of income from their investment.
If a tenant wishes to default on that contract, and the landlord accepts the repudiation, then the tenancy ends on the terms agreed. In such a situation of surrender the landlord can stipulate the terms of early surrender, provided they are reasonable. Such reasonable terms can be to ensure the aggrieved party (here, the landlord) be placed in the same position as they would have been in, but for the breach of the tenancy agreement.
If the parties cannot agree to end the tenancy, it is open to that party to apply to the Tribunal to reduce the term pursuant to section 66(1) of the Act.
A fixed-term contract will be applied strictly, and it is only in limited circumstances, that a Court or Tribunal would interfere with it. For residential tenancies, one of these circumstances is found in section 66 of the Act, which allows for the reduction of fixed term tenancy agreements.
There is a high threshold that needs to be met before the Tribunal will reduce the term. In particular the applicant will need to establish that: a. there has been a change in their circumstances; and b. that change was unforeseen; and c. that unforeseen change will result in severe hardship to the applicant if the tenancy is not ended; and d. the severe hardship the applicant would suffer if the term was not reduced exceeds the hardship the other party would suffer if the term was reduced.
“Unforeseen” means unexpected or without warning. An unforeseen change in circumstances has in previous cases included 1 : a. An unexpected transfer of the tenant’s employment to another city just before the tenancy commenced; b. One of four tenants developing a sudden and serious illness leaving the property; c. Suicide of a co-tenant; d. Visits from unknown persons enquiring about drugs and three burglaries at the premises; e. A former partner moving nearby in breach of a protection order; f. A partner leaving the relationship and the tenancy property; g. Detection of a former methamphetamine laboratory; h. Relocation to another city for cancer treatment; i. In earthquake cases, services cut to the tenancy property; and j. Substantial damage to the property. The tenant’s submissions
The tenants seeks early termination of the fixed term on the basis of an unforeseen change in their circumstances namely [Tenant 2]’s cancer diagnosis.
They said the purchase of a home was driven by a need to provide [Tenant 2] with stability and to reduced disruption during his treatment. This could not be achieved while living in their rental property as it was being actively marketed for sale. 1 Usher & Usher v Bravo Property Management [2024] NZTT 4892686 at [13]
The tenants said that after their requests for the fixed term to be commuted to a periodic tenancy were declined, they had agreed break lease terms for the assignment of the tenancy with the landlord. However, despite their best efforts they had been unable to assign the lease which they say was hampered by the landlord’s decision to market the property for sale.
The tenants told the Tribunal that in addition to purchasing a home to provide stability for [Tenant 2], they also wanted to take up their mortgage offer given the uncertainty of their financial situation. The tenants said that at present [Tenant 2] works full time but his employment status could change depending upon treatment. Their mortgage offer was premised on their current financial position.
The tenants told the Tribunal they had always intended to purchase a property when they relocated to [Town] and had viewed a number of properties to that end.
A timeline for the purchase of the tenant’s property was outlined as follows: a. The property was viewed in August 2025. b. Mortgage pre-approval was secured in January 2026. c. The tenants made an offer on the property on 23 February 2026. d. On 27 February 2026, the property went unconditional and the deposit was paid. e. The purchase of the property settles and the tenants take ownership on 27 March 2026. The landlord’s submissions
The landlords oppose the tenant’s application for a reduction of the fixed term and provided extensive written submissions with supporting evidence.
The landlord said that up until the date of hearing the tenants had failed to provide any evidence to support their claim there had been an unforeseen change in their circumstances. Specifically, the landlord said they had not received evidence of [Tenant 2]’s diagnosis or proof the tenants had entered into an unconditional agreement for the sale and purchase of a property.
In addition, the landlord states that the change in circumstance and resulting financial hardship relied upon by the tenants was reasonably foreseeable when they committed to the purchase of a property while locked into a fixed term tenancy. Analysis and decision
The Tribunal may reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced. See section 66(1) of the Act.
The tenants argue there has been an unforeseen change in their circumstances, following [Tenant 2]’s cancer diagnosis. That diagnosis prompted them to “pull the trigger” and purchase a property in order to provide a stable environment and minimise potential health risks. The tenants said that despite their best efforts they have been unable to assign the lease due to their landlord’s decision to market the property for sale. The consequence of this, is that they now face potential financial hardship if their fixed term is not ended on 31 March 2026. That is because they will be required to pay both their mortgage and the rent due under the tenancy agreement.
The Tribunal is sympathetic to the circumstances of the tenants but, having considered the facts, does not find there has been an unforeseen change in their circumstances within the meaning of section 66(1) of the Act. The Tribunal acknowledges that receiving the cancer diagnosis was unexpected, however the tenants’ subsequent decision to purchase a property and the consequences arising from it were not unforeseeable.
The tenants’ evidence shows that the purchase of their home was not unexpected, accidental or beyond their control. On the contrary, the Tribunal finds the tenants decision to purchase the property was well thought out and process driven. The tenants moved to [Town] with a view to purchasing a property. They viewed several properties and arranged finance in the form of a mortgage offer in January 2026. The tenants made several requests to the landlord for the tenancy to move from a fixed term to a periodic lease, which had all been declined. The tenants made an offer on the property on 23 February 2026, paying the deposit and going unconditional on 27 February 2026.
At the time the tenants entered into a sale and purchase agreement they were fully informed of the landlords expectations around assignment of the lease and knew their rental property was being marketed for sale. The Tribunal finds that it was reasonably foreseeable the tenants may have been unable to assign the lease in those circumstances and would remain liable for the rent under the terms of the tenancy agreement.
The tenants had security of tenure until the end of the fixed term. No medical evidence was provided showing the tenants needed to leave the property, or that open homes viewings presented a health risk, or that the property was not suitable for [Tenant 2] while he undergoes treatment.
The Tribunal finds the tenants could have deferred purchasing a property or deferred the settlement date until after the tenancy ended.
These facts support the conclusion that the tenants change in circumstances were foreseeable and self-directed. The purchase of a property does not fall within the category of unforeseen events contemplated by section 66(1) of the Act.
Accordingly, the tribunal finds that the tenants’ decision to buy a home, and the resulting increased financial burden, were foreseeable consequences.

Do the remaining limbs need to be considered?

Because the Tribunal has found that there has been no unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances, it is unnecessary for me to consider the remaining two limbs under section 66(1) of the Act.
Section 66(1) of the Act is framed in a sequential manner. The Tribunal may only reduce or terminate a fixed-term tenancy if all three elements are satisfied: a. That there has been an unforeseen change in the applicants circumstances; and b. That the applicant would suffer severe hardship if the tenancy were not reduced; and c. That the hardship to the applicant would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the tenancy were reduced.
In my view, the foreseeability requirement serves as a threshold test or gatekeeper. Unless the tenants can first establish that an unforeseen change in circumstances has occurred, there is no need to proceed to consider the degree or comparative balance of hardship between the tenant and the landlord.
Here, the Tribunal has found that the tenants’ change in circumstances was foreseeable when they purchased a property. Accordingly, it cannot be an unforeseen event within the meaning of section 66(1) of the Act.
Because that threshold requirement has not been met, the Tribunal is not required to make findings on the remaining two questions of severe hardship or comparative hardship. Conclusion
The tenants have failed to persuade the Tribunal, on the balance of probabilities, that their purchase of a property following a cancer diagnosis was an unforeseen change in circumstances.
Accordingly the tenant’s application for a reduction of the fixed term is declined and the case is dismissed. Name Suppression
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case. In this case the landlord has been wholly successful and name suppression is ordered.
Under section 95A(4) of the Act the Tribunal may, on the application of any party or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and public interest, order that all or part of the evidence or the name and identifying particulars of any witness or party is not published.
The Tribunal heard that one of the tenants has received a cancer diagnosis and is receiving treatment. While the facts and reasons of this case may be in the public interest, given the circumstances surrounding one of the tenants, I do not think this extends to naming the parties and on that basis the names and identifying particulars of the tenants are suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5455272 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5455272 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the fixed term be reduced?

Do the remaining limbs need to be considered?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Should the fixed term be reduced?

Do the remaining limbs need to be considered?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions