How much money was awarded in case 5490709?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5490709?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5490709?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13678555-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5490709?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5490709?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5490709?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13678555-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5490709 — 14-day notice

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5490709 about?

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

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The application for termination is dismissed.
The 21-day notice given by the tenant to terminate the tenancy is valid and cannot be revoked.
Accordingly, the tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at midnight on Friday 05 June 2026.

Reasons

Mr Woodbury and Mr Olds appeared for the landlord by video. The tenant did not join the video link. I made a phone call to the tenant’s contact number provided, but there was no answer. The hearing has proceeded in the tenant’s absence.
The tenancy commenced on 09 February 2022 and is periodic.
On 16 April 2026, the landlord filed an application for termination of the tenancy for failure to remedy 14-day breach notices to remove a dog and rubbish or alternatively an order that the tenant remedy the breaches.
The landlord has provided 14-day notices issued 26 June 2023, 21 March 2025, and 10 December 2025 relating to rubbish, and a notice issued 09 December 2025 relating to a dog.
The landlord has provided photographs taken on 21 November 2025, showing rubbish inside the boundaries of the property and immediately outside. Photographs from 30 January 2026 show a dog tethered at the rear of the property, with rubbish inside and immediately outside the boundary. On 18 March 2026, photographs show the same dog and rubbish inside and immediately outside the boundary. On 26 March 2026, the same dog is shown roaming free outside the property. Finally, on 26 May 2026, photographs again show rubbish inside and outside the boundaries of the property.
The landlord also claims that the dog, which has been allowed to roam, constitutes an interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy of other tenants who reside nearby, and others in the neighbourhood. However, no breach notices have been issued for this matter.
Following the landlord’s application, on 14 May 2026, the tenant gave the landlord 21 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy. The notice has been produced. The landlord is concerned that the tenant may not leave the property in accordance with their notice.
During the hearing, the issue arose as to whether, in light of the imminent ending of the tenancy, the landlord’s claim, relating to the dog in particular, had become moot, that is whether any determination by the Tribunal would have any practical effect.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (Act).
Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.
In determining the exercise of the discretion in section 56(1)(c), the Court in Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management Limited [2020] NZDC 19229, stated at [61]: [61] Factors which are relevant to whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate this tenancy include: •The history of the tenancy. •Whether there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. •Whether the history of breaches was such that it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. •Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. •The conduct of the landlord. •The gravity of the breach. •Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.
Section 51(2A) of the Act states that a tenant may terminate a periodic tenancy in any case by giving at least 21 days’ notice.
Section 51(6) states: A party who has given an effective notice to terminate a tenancy— (a) may, at any time before the expiry of the period of notice, revoke the notice with the consent of the other party; but (b) may give a further notice to terminate the tenancy only if the prior notice is revoked.
A moot application is one where the issue in dispute is no longer relevant or there is no longer a live dispute between the parties, and the Tribunal’s decision would therefore have no practical effect.
In the case of Trustees of Link Trust No1 v BC 68782 [ 2022] NZHC151, the applicant sought a declaration appointing them as the chairman of a body corporate which no longer functioned. The Tribunal declined to deal with the matter on the basis that it did not have jurisdiction to make such a declaration, nor would it serve any purpose, as the body corporate no longer functioned.
The applicant appealed to the District Court, which dismissed the appeal. The applicant then appealed to the High Court. The High Court also dismissed the appeal, referring to section 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Referring to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, the High Court stated: [18] The jurisdiction exists to ensure practical justice to those involved in such disputes. The manner in which it undertakes that role should be directed to that end. This is confirmed by s 85 of the Act which provides: 85 Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2) The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.
At paragraph [20] the Court went onto state: [20] First, the Tribunal proceeded in the manner required of it in dismissing a claim on this basis because it no longer had any practical significance for the participants. It is not the role of the Tribunal to make declarations on matters that have no such significance. Rather it must address disputes between them, and it must do so in light of both the principles of law and the substantial merits and justice of the case. If upholding a claim is not consistent with the substantial merits and justice of a case, and it does not resolve a real and practical dispute between the parties, then it would not be appropriate for the Tribunal to grant the relief sought. To do so would be unfair and unjust to the other parties to the suggested dispute. Analysis and decision
I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to remedy the breach notice relating to the dog, which, as of the date of the hearing, appears to remain at the property. No application has been made by the tenant to keep the dog at the property.
While it is clear that there is rubbish within the boundary of the property, the photographs show a significant amount of rubbish outside the boundary fence in what appears to be common ground accessible by other tenants. While the tenant has failed to remove rubbish within their boundary, it is unclear whether they are responsible for the other rubbish.
The 14-day notice to remove the dog is the first notice for this type of breach issued during this tenancy.
The termination notice given by the tenant is effective; that is, it is valid in form and has been properly served on the landlord. Under section 51(6), the tenant cannot revoke the notice unless the landlord consents. The landlord states they do not consent to its revocation by the tenant. On that basis, the tenancy will terminate, and possession will pass to the landlord on 05 June 2026.
Taking into account the factors in Vincent Dean Huff, I am not satisfied that, despite the breach being proven, it would be inequitable to refuse termination. Although the tenant has failed to remedy the notice and remove the dog, the tenancy will end in seven days’ time, on 05 June 2026. On this date, both the tenant and the dog will leave the property. I also do not consider that an order for removal of the dog would have any practical effect, as if not complied with, the landlord would be unlikely to have the matter returned to the Tribunal before the end of the tenancy.
Under section 77(1)(f) and (g) of the Act, the Tribunal may determine the validity of any termination notice and make an order in favour of a party entitled to possession. As stated, the notice is valid. The tenant cannot revoke the notice without the landlord’s consent, and the landlord does not consent. Accordingly, I make an order declaring that the tenancy will terminate, and possession will pass to the landlord at midnight on Friday, 05 June 2026. Costs
There is no order for reimbursement of the filing fee. 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 their name or identifying particulars of that party 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.
Although the Tribunal has confirmed the effectiveness of the termination notice issued by the tenant, the landlord has nevertheless not been either wholly or substantially successful with their claims for termination for breach of the 14-day notice. The tenant, on the other hand, has been wholly successful in avoiding termination on the grounds claimed by the landlord. Accordingly, I order suppression of the tenant’s name and the address of the property.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

The application for termination is dismissed.

The 21-day notice given by the tenant to terminate the tenancy is valid and cannot be revoked.

Accordingly, the tenancy of [The tenant/s] at [Tenancy address suppressed] is terminated, and possession is granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust, at midnight on Friday 05 June 2026.

Reasons

Mr Woodbury and Mr Olds appeared for the landlord by video. The tenant did not join the video link. I made a phone call to the tenant’s contact number provided, but there was no answer. The hearing has proceeded in the tenant’s absence.

The tenancy commenced on 09 February 2022 and is periodic.

On 16 April 2026, the landlord filed an application for termination of the tenancy for failure to remedy 14-day breach notices to remove a dog and rubbish or alternatively an order that the tenant remedy the breaches.

The landlord has provided 14-day notices issued 26 June 2023, 21 March 2025, and 10 December 2025 relating to rubbish, and a notice issued 09 December 2025 relating to a dog.

The landlord has provided photographs taken on 21 November 2025, showing rubbish inside the boundaries of the property and immediately outside. Photographs from 30 January 2026 show a dog tethered at the rear of the property, with rubbish inside and immediately outside the boundary. On 18 March 2026, photographs show the same dog and rubbish inside and immediately outside the boundary. On 26 March 2026, the same dog is shown roaming free outside the property. Finally, on 26 May 2026, photographs again show rubbish inside and outside the boundaries of the property.

The landlord also claims that the dog, which has been allowed to roam, constitutes an interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy of other tenants who reside nearby, and others in the neighbourhood. However, no breach notices have been issued for this matter.

Following the landlord’s application, on 14 May 2026, the tenant gave the landlord 21 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy. The notice has been produced. The landlord is concerned that the tenant may not leave the property in accordance with their notice.

During the hearing, the issue arose as to whether, in light of the imminent ending of the tenancy, the landlord’s claim, relating to the dog in particular, had become moot, that is whether any determination by the Tribunal would have any practical effect.

Should the tenancy be terminated?

The Tribunal may terminate a tenancy for breach where, due to the nature or extent of the breach, it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate. See section 56(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (Act).

Where the breach is capable of remedy the landlord must first serve a notice on the tenant requiring them to remedy the breach within at least 14 days and establish that the tenant has failed to do so.

In determining the exercise of the discretion in section 56(1)(c), the Court in Vincent Dean Huff v City Central Property Management Limited [2020] NZDC 19229, stated at [61]: [61] Factors which are relevant to whether it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate this tenancy include: •The history of the tenancy. •Whether there has been a persistent failure after repeated warnings. •Whether the history of breaches was such that it was unlikely the tenant would comply with their obligations in the future. •Whether the breach was inadvertent or deliberately committed. •The conduct of the landlord. •The gravity of the breach. •Whether termination is a proportionate response to the breach.

Section 51(2A) of the Act states that a tenant may terminate a periodic tenancy in any case by giving at least 21 days’ notice.

Section 51(6) states: A party who has given an effective notice to terminate a tenancy— (a) may, at any time before the expiry of the period of notice, revoke the notice with the consent of the other party; but (b) may give a further notice to terminate the tenancy only if the prior notice is revoked.

A moot application is one where the issue in dispute is no longer relevant or there is no longer a live dispute between the parties, and the Tribunal’s decision would therefore have no practical effect.

In the case of Trustees of Link Trust No1 v BC 68782 [ 2022] NZHC151, the applicant sought a declaration appointing them as the chairman of a body corporate which no longer functioned. The Tribunal declined to deal with the matter on the basis that it did not have jurisdiction to make such a declaration, nor would it serve any purpose, as the body corporate no longer functioned.

The applicant appealed to the District Court, which dismissed the appeal. The applicant then appealed to the High Court. The High Court also dismissed the appeal, referring to section 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

Referring to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, the High Court stated: [18] The jurisdiction exists to ensure practical justice to those involved in such disputes. The manner in which it undertakes that role should be directed to that end. This is confirmed by s 85 of the Act which provides: 85 Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2) The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.

At paragraph [20] the Court went onto state: [20] First, the Tribunal proceeded in the manner required of it in dismissing a claim on this basis because it no longer had any practical significance for the participants. It is not the role of the Tribunal to make declarations on matters that have no such significance. Rather it must address disputes between them, and it must do so in light of both the principles of law and the substantial merits and justice of the case. If upholding a claim is not consistent with the substantial merits and justice of a case, and it does not resolve a real and practical dispute between the parties, then it would not be appropriate for the Tribunal to grant the relief sought. To do so would be unfair and unjust to the other parties to the suggested dispute. Analysis and decision

I am satisfied that the tenant has failed to remedy the breach notice relating to the dog, which, as of the date of the hearing, appears to remain at the property. No application has been made by the tenant to keep the dog at the property.

While it is clear that there is rubbish within the boundary of the property, the photographs show a significant amount of rubbish outside the boundary fence in what appears to be common ground accessible by other tenants. While the tenant has failed to remove rubbish within their boundary, it is unclear whether they are responsible for the other rubbish.

The 14-day notice to remove the dog is the first notice for this type of breach issued during this tenancy.

The termination notice given by the tenant is effective; that is, it is valid in form and has been properly served on the landlord. Under section 51(6), the tenant cannot revoke the notice unless the landlord consents. The landlord states they do not consent to its revocation by the tenant. On that basis, the tenancy will terminate, and possession will pass to the landlord on 05 June 2026.

Taking into account the factors in Vincent Dean Huff, I am not satisfied that, despite the breach being proven, it would be inequitable to refuse termination. Although the tenant has failed to remedy the notice and remove the dog, the tenancy will end in seven days’ time, on 05 June 2026. On this date, both the tenant and the dog will leave the property. I also do not consider that an order for removal of the dog would have any practical effect, as if not complied with, the landlord would be unlikely to have the matter returned to the Tribunal before the end of the tenancy.

Under section 77(1)(f) and (g) of the Act, the Tribunal may determine the validity of any termination notice and make an order in favour of a party entitled to possession. As stated, the notice is valid. The tenant cannot revoke the notice without the landlord’s consent, and the landlord does not consent. Accordingly, I make an order declaring that the tenancy will terminate, and possession will pass to the landlord at midnight on Friday, 05 June 2026. Costs

There is no order for reimbursement of the filing fee. 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 their name or identifying particulars of that party 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.

Although the Tribunal has confirmed the effectiveness of the termination notice issued by the tenant, the landlord has nevertheless not been either wholly or substantially successful with their claims for termination for breach of the 14-day notice. The tenant, on the other hand, has been wholly successful in avoiding termination on the grounds claimed by the landlord. Accordingly, I order suppression of the tenant’s name and the address of the property.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5490709 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5490709 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Should the tenancy be terminated?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions