What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5462674 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5462674?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5462674?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5462674?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13848129-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5462674 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5462674?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5462674?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5462674?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13848129-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

88 Eskdale Road, Birkdale, Auckland 0626 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5462674 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, 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”
The District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy 1 , confirmed 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 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. 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.
The applicant claimed that he is entitled to a refund of the bond and one weeks rent in advance that he paid to secure the property on 13 November 2025. He says the parties never had a concluded contract, as he was waiting for a written contract, and he is therefore entitled to a full refund.
The respondent submits alternatively that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to make the order requested, as this was a “flat sharing” and not tenancy relationship and that even if it was a residential tenancy, the applicant broke the contract when he gave notice that he was not shifting in as they had agreed and as a consequence he incurred losses significantly greater than the three weeks rent the applicant paid as he could not relet the property until mid-January 2026.
I find that whether this was a flat sharing or residential tenancy agreement the partis had an oral agreement and therefore a binding contract, that the applicant would rent the “granny flat” attached to the respondent’s house from 24 November 2025.
There was an offer to rent, that the applicant accepted when he paid the rent in advance and bond. The commencement date was 24/11/2025. The applicant was then obliged to give 21 days’ notice to end the contract, and he did not do this until December.
While the RTA states that tenancy agreements are to be in writing (s13A) it goes on to state that a tenancy agreement will not be unenforceable on the grounds that it is not in writing s13(c).
The Act therefore specifically anticipates that parties may have binding contracts not yet confirmed in writing.
The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that he is entitled to a refund of the money he paid. He paid that money to secure the property on agreed terms and conditions and then for unfortunate reasons needed to break or cancel the contract. In those circumstances the respondent is entitled to 21 days’ notice, that he was ending the contract. This was not given until 15/12/2025 when the applicant received formal confirmation that he could not bring his wife and child to NZ as he had anticipated.
While I have considerable sympathy for the applicant’s plight, I am unable to find in his favour on “humanitarian” grounds as he requested.
The dispute must be resolved by reference to principles of law, and these do not support the respondent being required to provide the refund requested.
It also seems likely the written agreement would have been excluded from jurisdiction, as the respondent and his family continued to live at the property as their principal place of residence.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, 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”

The District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy 1 , confirmed 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 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. 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.

The applicant claimed that he is entitled to a refund of the bond and one weeks rent in advance that he paid to secure the property on 13 November 2025. He says the parties never had a concluded contract, as he was waiting for a written contract, and he is therefore entitled to a full refund.

The respondent submits alternatively that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to make the order requested, as this was a “flat sharing” and not tenancy relationship and that even if it was a residential tenancy, the applicant broke the contract when he gave notice that he was not shifting in as they had agreed and as a consequence he incurred losses significantly greater than the three weeks rent the applicant paid as he could not relet the property until mid-January 2026.

I find that whether this was a flat sharing or residential tenancy agreement the partis had an oral agreement and therefore a binding contract, that the applicant would rent the “granny flat” attached to the respondent’s house from 24 November 2025.

There was an offer to rent, that the applicant accepted when he paid the rent in advance and bond. The commencement date was 24/11/2025. The applicant was then obliged to give 21 days’ notice to end the contract, and he did not do this until December.

While the RTA states that tenancy agreements are to be in writing (s13A) it goes on to state that a tenancy agreement will not be unenforceable on the grounds that it is not in writing s13(c).

The Act therefore specifically anticipates that parties may have binding contracts not yet confirmed in writing.

The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that he is entitled to a refund of the money he paid. He paid that money to secure the property on agreed terms and conditions and then for unfortunate reasons needed to break or cancel the contract. In those circumstances the respondent is entitled to 21 days’ notice, that he was ending the contract. This was not given until 15/12/2025 when the applicant received formal confirmation that he could not bring his wife and child to NZ as he had anticipated.

While I have considerable sympathy for the applicant’s plight, I am unable to find in his favour on “humanitarian” grounds as he requested.

The dispute must be resolved by reference to principles of law, and these do not support the respondent being required to provide the refund requested.

It also seems likely the written agreement would have been excluded from jurisdiction, as the respondent and his family continued to live at the property as their principal place of residence.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5462674 — Tenancy dispute at 88 Eskdale Road, Birkdale, Auckland 0626

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5462674 — Tenancy dispute at 88 Eskdale Road, Birkdale, Auckland 0626

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions