What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5486130 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 5486130?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5486130?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5486130?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13563453-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5486130 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 5486130?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5486130?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5486130?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13563453-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

10 Otaki Street, Kaiapoi 7630 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5486130 — Exemplary damages

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Lime Real Estate Limited As Agent For Netelani Neru, Margueritte Neru and Dave Neru must pay [The tenant] $28.00 immediately, being the filing fee.
No order is otherwise made on the tenant’s application.

Reasons

The tenant and representatives of Lime Real Estate (Lime) attended the hearing.
The tenant seeks a declaration that she be removed from the tenancy agreement and that she is not liable to pay or contribute towards the cost of a methamphetamine test. Background
This is a fixed term tenancy ending today 7 May 2026.
The tenant is one of two tenants on the agreement.
The tenant gave a valid notice in April 2026 stating that she did not want the agreement to continue past 7 May. The other tenant wanted to stay on in the premises.
Lime told the tenants that the landlord required the premises to be tested for methamphetamine and the tenants to pay for the test before the tenant would be released from the tenancy.
The tenant objected to that and hence she has made this application.
The landlord has since agreed a new tenancy with the other tenant and the other tenant has paid for the meth test.
The landlord’s position now is that the tenancy ends today, the tenant ceases to be a tenant after today and they do not seek any payment from her towards the cost of the meth test. Discussion and Resolution
I made the point during the hearing that in a joint tenancy one tenant can give a valid notice terminating the tenancy. Lime disputed that and said that their understanding was that all tenants had to agree to terminate the tenancy. They said that they have had a decision or decisions from the Tribunal to that effect. I said that I would explain the legal position in my order today which I will now do.
A good starting point is s214 of the Property Law Act 2007. That states, in effect, that a notice of termination for a periodic tenancy may be given by one or more lessees as joint tenants, on behalf of all the joint tenants, unless all the parties to the tenancy have agreed, expressly or by implication, to do otherwise.
This refers to a notice of termination for a periodic tenancy and the tenancy under discussion is a fixed term tenancy. But the notice in this case was for a periodic tenancy. It did not terminate the fixed term tenancy because that had to run its course. It prevented the tenancy from becoming periodic and so, in my view, the section applies. But even if I am wrong about that, the common law rule is the same.
At common law the principle that fewer than all the joint lessees (or lessors) may terminate a periodic tenancy is based on the understanding that a periodic joint tenancy exists only for as long as the joint lessees (and lessors) are unanimous as to its continuance. A unilateral notice destroys that unanimity, and this ends the lease (or tenancy).
The English case Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council v Monk [1992] 1 AC 478 (HL) is an authority for the principle. Lord Bridge said in that case, “...unless the terms of the tenancy agreement otherwise provide, notice to quit given by one joint tenant without the concurrence of any other joint tenant is effective to determine a periodic tenancy.” A notice to quit is a termination notice and “determine” in that quotation means terminate.
That is the law in New Zealand as well. In the publication Residential Tenancies: The Law and Practice 4ed 2012 at 6.6 it states that a notice of termination by one of two or more joint tenants is effective to terminate a periodic tenancy.
The same must apply to a notice given under s60A(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). There is no reason why the same principle would not apply. It would be absurd if one joint tenant could give notice to terminate a periodic tenancy on one day (just within 21 days of the end date) but could not give notice to prevent the tenancy from becoming periodic on the previous day.
It follows that the tenant gave a valid notice to end the tenancy at the end of its term and nothing more was required of her. If the other tenant wanted to stay on, that was something that needed to be agreed with the landlord and a new tenancy granted. Plainly there could not be a continuation because the parties would not be the same. Requiring Payment for the Meth Test
A landlord cannot, without the Tribunal’s consent, require a tenant to pay any money other than rent or bond for the grant, renewal, variation or assignment of a tenancy agreement (s17(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.
In this case the landlord required the tenant to contribute towards the cost of a meth test before she would be “released” from the tenancy. That amounts to requiring the payment of money for a variation of the tenancy. No variation was required because the tenant had given a valid notice to terminate the tenancy. There was no justification whatsoever for the landlord’s request and it constituted am unlawful act under s17(1) of the Act.
There is no claim for exemplary damages in the tenant’s application and so I cannot consider making an award of exemplary damages.
Nor can I make an order for repayment by the landlord to the other tenant of the cost of the meth test. She has not made any application.
Nor is there any need to make a declaration as sought by the tenant because the landlord accepts that the tenancy ends today. Filing Fee
Lime had no objection to me ordering them to pay the filing fee to the tenant and so I have done so. They have caused this unnecessary proceeding and so it is right that they should reimburse the tenant for the filing fee. After Today
After today the tenant has no continuing liability under the tenancy agreement. That does not affect any claims that can be made in relation to the term of the tenancy. If the landlord is considering making a claim against the tenant, I would ask them to bear in mind that the tenant could yet make an application for exemplary damages. I make no comment about the merits of such an application.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
Lime Real Estate Limited As Agent For Netelani Neru, Margueritte Neru and Dave Neru must pay [The tenant] $28.00 immediately, being the filing fee.
No order is otherwise made on the tenant’s application.

Reasons

The tenant and representatives of Lime Real Estate (Lime) attended the hearing.
The tenant seeks a declaration that she be removed from the tenancy agreement and that she is not liable to pay or contribute towards the cost of a methamphetamine test. Background
This is a fixed term tenancy ending today 7 May 2026.
The tenant is one of two tenants on the agreement.
The tenant gave a valid notice in April 2026 stating that she did not want the agreement to continue past 7 May. The other tenant wanted to stay on in the premises.
Lime told the tenants that the landlord required the premises to be tested for methamphetamine and the tenants to pay for the test before the tenant would be released from the tenancy.
The tenant objected to that and hence she has made this application.
The landlord has since agreed a new tenancy with the other tenant and the other tenant has paid for the meth test.
The landlord’s position now is that the tenancy ends today, the tenant ceases to be a tenant after today and they do not seek any payment from her towards the cost of the meth test. Discussion and Resolution
I made the point during the hearing that in a joint tenancy one tenant can give a valid notice terminating the tenancy. Lime disputed that and said that their understanding was that all tenants had to agree to terminate the tenancy. They said that they have had a decision or decisions from the Tribunal to that effect. I said that I would explain the legal position in my order today which I will now do.
A good starting point is s214 of the Property Law Act 2007. That states, in effect, that a notice of termination for a periodic tenancy may be given by one or more lessees as joint tenants, on behalf of all the joint tenants, unless all the parties to the tenancy have agreed, expressly or by implication, to do otherwise.
This refers to a notice of termination for a periodic tenancy and the tenancy under discussion is a fixed term tenancy. But the notice in this case was for a periodic tenancy. It did not terminate the fixed term tenancy because that had to run its course. It prevented the tenancy from becoming periodic and so, in my view, the section applies. But even if I am wrong about that, the common law rule is the same.
At common law the principle that fewer than all the joint lessees (or lessors) may terminate a periodic tenancy is based on the understanding that a periodic joint tenancy exists only for as long as the joint lessees (and lessors) are unanimous as to its continuance. A unilateral notice destroys that unanimity, and this ends the lease (or tenancy).
The English case Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council v Monk [1992] 1 AC 478 (HL) is an authority for the principle. Lord Bridge said in that case, “...unless the terms of the tenancy agreement otherwise provide, notice to quit given by one joint tenant without the concurrence of any other joint tenant is effective to determine a periodic tenancy.” A notice to quit is a termination notice and “determine” in that quotation means terminate.
That is the law in New Zealand as well. In the publication Residential Tenancies: The Law and Practice 4ed 2012 at 6.6 it states that a notice of termination by one of two or more joint tenants is effective to terminate a periodic tenancy.
The same must apply to a notice given under s60A(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). There is no reason why the same principle would not apply. It would be absurd if one joint tenant could give notice to terminate a periodic tenancy on one day (just within 21 days of the end date) but could not give notice to prevent the tenancy from becoming periodic on the previous day.
It follows that the tenant gave a valid notice to end the tenancy at the end of its term and nothing more was required of her. If the other tenant wanted to stay on, that was something that needed to be agreed with the landlord and a new tenancy granted. Plainly there could not be a continuation because the parties would not be the same. Requiring Payment for the Meth Test
A landlord cannot, without the Tribunal’s consent, require a tenant to pay any money other than rent or bond for the grant, renewal, variation or assignment of a tenancy agreement (s17(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.
In this case the landlord required the tenant to contribute towards the cost of a meth test before she would be “released” from the tenancy. That amounts to requiring the payment of money for a variation of the tenancy. No variation was required because the tenant had given a valid notice to terminate the tenancy. There was no justification whatsoever for the landlord’s request and it constituted am unlawful act under s17(1) of the Act.
There is no claim for exemplary damages in the tenant’s application and so I cannot consider making an award of exemplary damages.
Nor can I make an order for repayment by the landlord to the other tenant of the cost of the meth test. She has not made any application.
Nor is there any need to make a declaration as sought by the tenant because the landlord accepts that the tenancy ends today. Filing Fee
Lime had no objection to me ordering them to pay the filing fee to the tenant and so I have done so. They have caused this unnecessary proceeding and so it is right that they should reimburse the tenant for the filing fee. After Today
After today the tenant has no continuing liability under the tenancy agreement. That does not affect any claims that can be made in relation to the term of the tenancy. If the landlord is considering making a claim against the tenant, I would ask them to bear in mind that the tenant could yet make an application for exemplary damages. I make no comment about the merits of such an application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5486130 — Exemplary damages at 10 Otaki Street, Kaiapoi 7630

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5486130 — Exemplary damages at 10 Otaki Street, Kaiapoi 7630

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions