What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5465926 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5465926?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5465926?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5465926?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13521903-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5465926 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5465926?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5465926?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5465926?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13521903-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5465926 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing.

The tenant attended the hearing and confirmed she has made the application for a reduction of the fixed term tenancy on behalf of both tenants, the other tenant being her husband. Issue

The tenancy commenced on 13 June 2025. The tenancy agreement has a contractual end date of 13 June 2026.

The tenant has applied for reduction of the term of the fixed-term tenancy. Relevant legal provisions

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”. 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 1 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.” Relevant law - Reducing a fixed term tenancy

The usual legal position with fixed-term contracts, is that the term of the contract will be applied strictly, and it will only be in limited circumstances, that a decision maker like the Tribunal would interfere with that term. In the case of residential tenancies, one of these circumstances is found in section 66 of the RTA, which allows for the reduction of fixed term-tenancy agreements. That provision holds in part: 66 Reduction or termination of fixed-term tenancy (1) On application by a party to a fixed-term tenancy, the Tribunal may make an order reducing the term of the tenancy by a period stated in the order, and making such variations in the terms of the tenancy as are necessary because of the reduction of the term, where it is satisfied that, because of an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances, the severe hardship which the applicant would suffer if the term of the tenancy were not reduced would be greater than the hardship which the other party to the tenancy would suffer if the term were reduced. (2) Where the Tribunal makes an order under subsection (1), the Tribunal may order that the applicant pay to the other party an 1 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02 amount determined by the Tribunal by way of reasonable compensation for any loss or damage to the other party which would result from the reduction in the term of the tenancy.

There is a high threshold that needs to be met before the Tribunal will reduce the fixed-term. In particular the applicant will need to establish that: a. there has been a change in his or her 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.

In Elliot Lawes and ors v Comprende Limited 2 the Tribunal said:

Section 66 sets a high threshold for reducing fixed term tenancies. The jurisdiction in this section is an extension to the doctrine of frustration found in the general law of contract. In most cases, s66 is used to seek a balance between the competing interests of applicant tenants, for whom significant obligations under fixed term agreements can create severe hardship when circumstances unexpectedly turn against them, and landlords, who have financial obligations and expectations of their own arising from the same bargain.

The term “unforeseen” is a legal term defined by reference to the reverse (“foreseeability”) in cases relating to negligence (in determining whether a duty of care is owed and what damages are reasonably foreseeable) and in cases assessing damages for breach of contract (also in assessing the remoteness of damage). In both contexts, there is a body of case law which has established that: (a)foreseeability must be assessed objectively through the eyes of a reasonable person who has taken all reasonable steps to inform himself of the circumstances; (b)an outcome is foreseeable in legal terms if it is “liable to result”, “not unlikely”, “quite likely”, a “real danger”, a “serious possibility” or a “real risk”. 2 Elliot Lawes and ors v Comprende Limited [2022] NZTT 4365020 (c)The term “unforeseen” has few if any direct dictionary definitions, but by thesaurus is aligned with such concepts as “unexpected” and “without warning”. In a legal context, it must also be taken as the reverse of what is “foreseen”, thus being “not liable to result”, “unlikely”, “not a real danger”, “not a serious possibility” or “not a real risk”.”

Hardship is not defined in the RTA. However, the New Zealand Law Dictionary, 3 defines hardship as, “adverse repercussions whether mental or physical ranging from temporary discomfort or inconvenience to some permanent and unalterable misfortune”.

Where the Tribunal makes an order reducing the term of the tenancy, the Tribunal may order that the applicant pay to the other party an amount determined by the Tribunal by way of reasonable compensation for any loss or damage to the other party which would result from the reduction in the term of the tenancy. 4 This case

From the outset of the hearing, I outlined the relevant legal basis on which the Tribunal can reduce a fixed-term tenancy so that the parties understood on what basis I would be deciding the matter.

The tenant says in February 2026 her husband (the other tenant) applied for a job as a corrections officer in Australia. They were told the application process was a long process, and they thought he would be offered a job after the tenancy ended (if he was offered a job at all). The tenant’s husband was offered a job and on 8 April 2026 he moved to Australia to commence working. The tenant says his income has not yet been received. The tenants’ husband is paying $100 for the accommodation he has been provided by his employer.

The tenant says the job offer was unexpected. The tenant says she cannot afford the rent for this tenancy and WINZ will not assist further. She says she is experiencing financial hardship. The tenant says she has moved out of the home and is living with her family, awaiting the arrival of her 4 th child. After she has her baby, she will move to Australia.

The landlord says that the tenant has planned the move to Australia and the situation should have been planned better. The landlord says they are willing to assist with the situation and said they have explained the usual process for 3 New Zealand Law Dictionary, 10th edition, P Spiller, Lexis Nexis New Zealand February 2022. 4 Section 66(2) of the RTA. ending a fixed term tenancy, aside from the Tribunal making an order to reduce the fixed term.

Unforeseen change in circumstances?

Section 66 of the RTA is intended to capture changes to tenants’ circumstances which are unavoidable and unexpected, such as suffering a job loss or ill health, which require the tenant to relocate.

I consider on the evidence provided that the tenants’ personal circumstances have changed significantly for them since the commencement of the tenancy however I consider the changes were not unforeseeable. In applying for a new job in Australia the tenants should have known there was a real and serious possibility that tenant’s husband would be offered employment and that might occur before the fixed term tenancy ended.

I therefore consider the tenant has not proven that there has been an unforeseen change in their personal circumstances. Does the unforeseen change in circumstances result in severe hardship to the tenant that exceeds hardship that the landlord will suffer if the fixed term is reduced?

If I am wrong in my finding above, I note that I do not consider that the tenant will experience severe hardship if the tenancy does not end. The tenants continue to pay rent despite having moved out of the preemies. In addition, the tenant’s husband is paying $100 rent in Australia, which is not significant and there is insufficient evidence about the tenant’s financial situation to show that they will be unable to meet both rent obligations until the end of the fixed-term tenancy.

Accordingly, the tenant’s application to reduce the fixed-term tenancy is dismissed. Filing fee

The tenant has been unsuccessful in the application therefore, I decline to award the filing fee. Suppression

The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or 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. 5

The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published and may attach any conditions to that order the Tribunal considers appropriate. 6

Both parties sought name suppression.

The tenant has been unsuccessful with the claim, and I consider the public interest in publication outweighs any interest the tenant might have in suppression.

The landlord was successful in defending the application; therefore, name suppression is granted for the landlord.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing.

The tenant attended the hearing and confirmed she has made the application for a reduction of the fixed term tenancy on behalf of both tenants, the other tenant being her husband. Issue

The tenancy commenced on 13 June 2025. The tenancy agreement has a contractual end date of 13 June 2026.

The tenant has applied for reduction of the term of the fixed-term tenancy. Relevant legal provisions

In Elliot Lawes and ors v Comprende Limited 2 the Tribunal said:

From the outset of the hearing, I outlined the relevant legal basis on which the Tribunal can reduce a fixed-term tenancy so that the parties understood on what basis I would be deciding the matter.

Unforeseen change in circumstances?

Accordingly, the tenant’s application to reduce the fixed-term tenancy is dismissed. Filing fee

The tenant has been unsuccessful in the application therefore, I decline to award the filing fee. Suppression

Both parties sought name suppression.

The tenant has been unsuccessful with the claim, and I consider the public interest in publication outweighs any interest the tenant might have in suppression.

The landlord was successful in defending the application; therefore, name suppression is granted for the landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5465926 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5465926 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Unforeseen change in circumstances?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Unforeseen change in circumstances?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions