Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5493149 — Unit Titles
Decided 3 Jun 2026 · Published 3 Jun 2026 · Application 5493149
- Unit Titles
Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Adjudicator
C Price
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details and the tenancy address.
- The application is dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the video conference hearing.
- The tenant has applied to extend her tenancy beyond the end of a fixed-term tenancy. Burden of proof and evidence
- The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
- The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a 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.”
- The tenancy agreement provides that the tenancy is a fixed-term tenancy going from 14 November 2025 to 13 May 2026.
- In a letter dated 17 April 2026, the landlord formally notified the tenant that they would not be renewing the fixed-term tenancy and that she would have to vacate the property on 13 May 2026.
- The tenant asked for more time to be able to find another place to live, indicating she is studying and has a young daughter living with her to also accommodate. The tenant said it is difficult for her to attend property viewings on public transport as she does not have a car. The tenant wanted to have a further 90 days before she had to leave the property.
- The landlord said they were willing to give the tenants a further 2 weeks from the hearing date before she had to leave the property but no longer than this. The tenant said this was not long enough and she felt this was unfair. The property manager said the tenant had their notice on 17 April 2026 and so has already had 33 days by the hearing date to find alternative accommodation and has stayed at the property a week beyond the end of the tenancy on 13 May 2026.
- Section 50(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides that a tenancy ends, in the case of a fixed-term tenancy upon the expiry of the fixed term tenancy.
- Section 60A of the RTA provides that, on the expiry of a fixed-term tenancy of more than 90 days, the tenancy continues as a periodic tenancy with the same terms as the terms contained in the expired tenancy so far as those terms are consistent with a periodic tenancy, unless, within the effective period, either party gives to the other party written notice of their intention not to continue with the tenancy. The ‘effective period’ is the period that starts on the 90th day before the date on which the tenancy expires and ends on the 21st day before that date.
- The landlord’s notice dated 17 April 2026 that said they did not want to renew the fixed-term tenancy and the tenancy would terminate on the expiry date of 13 May 2026 is valid, as it was issued to the tenant within the ‘effective period’ in section 60A RTA.
- The tenant said she was not aware she had to notify the landlord she wished to renew the tenancy. However, it does not appear this would have made any difference as the landlord was clear that they did not wish to renew the fixed- term tenancy and had provided some witness statements of difficulties at the tenancy property that had affected the neighbours.
- As the landlord’s notice of their intention not to renew the fixed-term tenancy was valid, and the tenant has not provided any evidence to show this notice was invalid, nor has the tenant provided sufficient reason or evidence to set aside the landlord’s notice and essentially extend the tenancy into a periodic tenancy, I dismiss the tenant’s application.
- I note the tenant did not wish to take the landlord’s offer of a further 2 weeks at the property from the hearing date. Should the parties wish to negotiate this between themselves outside of the application, they can. However, I do not make any direction or order about this, as there was no consent between the parties at the hearing about this. Suppression
- Both parties requested name suppression.
- Section 95A(4) of the RTA provides that 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 party of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
- The tenant’s evidence was that she has a young daughter, is studying and is also related to the owner of the property. The tenant spoke of difficulties in finding a new place to live. The landlord’s evidence was that they have been under huge pressure from the Body Corporate at the tenancy property building about this tenant and wish to have the tenancy end and move forwards. Given the evidence and circumstances, I find the interests of the tenant and landlord outweigh the public interest in publishing their names. Therefore, I order that the parties’ names and identifying details and the tenancy address are not to be published.