What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5503350 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Lby Management Limited As Agents For

How much money was awarded in case 5503350?

Expenses Reasonably Incurred In Endi…: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5503350?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5503350?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13934908-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5503350 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] must pay Lby Management Limited As Agents For

How much money was awarded in case 5503350?

Expenses Reasonably Incurred In Endi…: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5503350?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5503350?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13934908-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 1, 85 Green Lane East, Remuera, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5503350 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5503350 — net $628.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Expenses reasonably incurred in ending the fixed term tenancy early	$600.00	Expenses reasonably incurred in ending the fixed term tenancy early
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$628.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$628.00

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Lby Management Limited As Agents For Yumei Luo & Yin Shan As Trustees For Shan Yin Property Investment Trust $628.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 22 July 2026. Amber Tian and Zoe Wang appeared on behalf of the landlord.
The parties signed a tenancy agreement on 14 April 2026. The tenancy agreement states that the tenancy is for a fixed-term, beginning on 3 May 2026 and ending on 1 May 2027. On 21 April 2026, the tenant sent the landlord an email advising that they no longer wished to proceed with the tenancy. The landlord agreed to allow the tenant to surrender the tenancy. The landlord seeks to recover $600.00 for the costs incurred in advertising the premises and finding a new tenant. The tenant claims they should not have to pay this, because they were induced to enter into the tenancy following misrepresentations made by the landlord. The tenant also claims that they were pressured to sign the tenancy agreement by the landlord.
The issues I must determine are: a. Was the agreement between the parties induced by fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake? b. Should the tenant pay the landlord $600.00 for the costs reasonably incurred in ending the fixed-term tenancy early? Standard of proof
Each party must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This 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 Katipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, 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 of 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. Was the agreement between the parties induced by fraud, misrepresentation or mistake? The law
The Section 78(1)(g) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) empowers the Tribunal to set aside a tenancy agreement where it appears it has been induced by fraud, misrepresentation or mistake.
The law relating to misrepresentation is found in sections 35 and 37 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 and common law. The representation must be one of fact, not opinion. It must be false, and it must relate to a matter of present or past fact, not to the future. For there to be an actionable misrepresentation, the following elements must be present: a. A false representation. b. The misrepresentation must have been made by one party to the other. c. The party who made the misrepresentation must have intended for the other party to rely on it. d. The misrepresentation must induce the party to enter the contract. Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims that when they visited the premises to complete a viewing, the landlord represented to them that water was included in the rent. The tenant also claims that the landlord represented to them that one garage carpark was included with the tenancy.
The tenant claims that they expressed their interest in renting the premises and were later pressured to sign the tenancy agreement by the landlord. The tenant claims the landlord contacted them while the tenant was at work and insisted that the tenant sign the tenancy agreement. The tenant claims they were in theatre at the time and tried to explain to the landlord that they wanted time to consider the agreement first. The tenant claims the landlord told them that the owner wanted to counter-sign the agreement as soon as possible and that the tenant could check it later. The tenant claims the landlord reassured them that everything in the agreement was as it should be, when in fact it was not. For these reasons, the tenant claims they were “tricked” into signing the tenancy agreement.
The landlord denies they made any false representations to the tenant about water being included in the rent or a garage carpark being provided. They claim they have always been clear and transparent with the tenant. The landlord also denies pressuring the tenant to sign the tenancy agreement. Analysis
I am not convinced, on the balance of probabilities, that the landlord made any false representation to the tenant about water being included in the rent or a garage carpark being included with the tenancy. Insufficient evidence was submitted to convince me of this. No written evidence of the landlord advising the tenant, before the tenancy agreement was signed, that water was included in the rent or a garage carpark was included with the tenancy was submitted. No witnesses were called to give evidence that the landlord made these types of representations to the tenant. No objective evidence to support the tenant’s claim that these representations were made was submitted at all.
Email correspondence between the parties was submitted, but it does not support the tenant’s claim that false representations were made. The tenant sent the landlord an email on 14 April 2026 attaching a copy of the signed tenancy agreement. At the same time, the tenant queried the carparking at the premises per the below: ... 1, where are the two parking lot allocation to me find, is it the garage type that I will park the car inside or outside the parking bay
The landlord replied with the following: ...parking is available downstairs, as long as it does not block the garage. We will also provide an additional garage; however, please note that it is quite small and may not be suitable for a vehicle...
This discussion does not support the tenant’s version of events because it does not contain false representation by the landlord that the tenancy included a garage carpark. The landlord clearly states that a garage is included with the tenancy but warns the tenant that it may be too small to park a car.
The tenant sent the landlord an email on 21 April 2026, advising of their wish to withdraw from the tenancy. The reason given by the tenant was that their wife would soon be joining them in New Zealand and felt the house was cramped and had little space. No claim of any misrepresentation by the landlord as to a garage carpark or water being included in the rent was made by the tenant at this time.
For all of these reasons, I am not convinced, on the balance of probabilities, that the landlord made any false representation to the tenant, which induced them to enter into the agreement.
I am also not convinced that the landlord placed any undue pressure on the tenant to sign the tenancy agreement. The landlord denies this was the case and the tenant did not submit any supporting evidence to prove otherwise. The tenant is an adult and is responsible for the signing of the tenancy agreement and any consequences that follow.
For all of these reasons, I decline to set the tenancy agreement aside. Should the tenant pay the landlord $600.00 for the costs reasonably incurred in allowing the tenant to surrender the tenancy? The law
One of the ways in which a fixed-term tenancy may end, is where the tenant surrenders the tenancy, or delivers up vacant possession of the premises, to the landlord with the landlord’s written consent. 1
Where this occurs, the landlord is entitled to recover from the outgoing tenant, any expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord in respect of the termination of the tenancy. 2 A landlord who seeks to recover such expenses, must first provide the tenant with an itemised account of the expenses. 3 Analysis
The parties signed a fixed-term tenancy agreement on 14 April 2026. The agreement was binding upon the parties following their signing.
On 21 April 2026, before the tenancy was due to begin, the tenant advised the landlord that they no longer wished to proceed with the tenancy. The landlord gave their written consent to the tenant’s request to withdraw from the tenancy but advised the tenant that they would be liable to pay costs totalling approximately $600.00 to cover the costs incurred in finding a new tenant, as well as rent until a new tenancy began. Because the tenant did not live in the premises, the landlord later agreed not to recover any rent.
I find that the tenant surrendered the tenancy with the landlord’s written consent on 21 April 2026. It follows that the landlord is entitled to recover from the tenant the costs reasonably incurred in ending the fixed-term tenancy early.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $600.00 to cover advertising costs, as well as time and labour spent vetting prospective tenants. The landlord submitted a copy of an email sent to the tenant on 4 May 2026 providing them with this invoice, which includes an itemised account. The tenant questions whether the landlord actually undertook the work they say they did. The invoice is sufficient evidence to convince me, on the balance of probabilities, that they did. The landlord also provided a copy of an invoice for $264.50 to advertise the premises 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 50(1)(d). 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 44A(1). 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 44A(2). on various renting platforms such as, myRent and Trade Me. This fee is included in the total fee of $600.00.
For all of these reasons, I find the tenant is liable to pay the landlord $600.00 for the costs reasonably incurred in ending the fixed-term tenancy early. Filing fee
The landlord has been wholly successful with their application. Therefore, I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5503350 — net $628.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Expenses reasonably incurred in ending the fixed term tenancy early	$600.00	Expenses reasonably incurred in ending the fixed term tenancy early
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$628.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$628.00

Order

[The tenant/s] must pay Lby Management Limited As Agents For Yumei Luo & Yin Shan As Trustees For Shan Yin Property Investment Trust $628.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 22 July 2026. Amber Tian and Zoe Wang appeared on behalf of the landlord.
The parties signed a tenancy agreement on 14 April 2026. The tenancy agreement states that the tenancy is for a fixed-term, beginning on 3 May 2026 and ending on 1 May 2027. On 21 April 2026, the tenant sent the landlord an email advising that they no longer wished to proceed with the tenancy. The landlord agreed to allow the tenant to surrender the tenancy. The landlord seeks to recover $600.00 for the costs incurred in advertising the premises and finding a new tenant. The tenant claims they should not have to pay this, because they were induced to enter into the tenancy following misrepresentations made by the landlord. The tenant also claims that they were pressured to sign the tenancy agreement by the landlord.
The issues I must determine are: a. Was the agreement between the parties induced by fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake? b. Should the tenant pay the landlord $600.00 for the costs reasonably incurred in ending the fixed-term tenancy early? Standard of proof
Each party must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. This means that they must establish that what they are claiming is more likely than not. This 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 Katipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, 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 of 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.
I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any particular claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence at the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. Was the agreement between the parties induced by fraud, misrepresentation or mistake? The law
The Section 78(1)(g) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) empowers the Tribunal to set aside a tenancy agreement where it appears it has been induced by fraud, misrepresentation or mistake.
The law relating to misrepresentation is found in sections 35 and 37 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 and common law. The representation must be one of fact, not opinion. It must be false, and it must relate to a matter of present or past fact, not to the future. For there to be an actionable misrepresentation, the following elements must be present: a. A false representation. b. The misrepresentation must have been made by one party to the other. c. The party who made the misrepresentation must have intended for the other party to rely on it. d. The misrepresentation must induce the party to enter the contract. Evidence and submissions of the parties
The tenant claims that when they visited the premises to complete a viewing, the landlord represented to them that water was included in the rent. The tenant also claims that the landlord represented to them that one garage carpark was included with the tenancy.
The tenant claims that they expressed their interest in renting the premises and were later pressured to sign the tenancy agreement by the landlord. The tenant claims the landlord contacted them while the tenant was at work and insisted that the tenant sign the tenancy agreement. The tenant claims they were in theatre at the time and tried to explain to the landlord that they wanted time to consider the agreement first. The tenant claims the landlord told them that the owner wanted to counter-sign the agreement as soon as possible and that the tenant could check it later. The tenant claims the landlord reassured them that everything in the agreement was as it should be, when in fact it was not. For these reasons, the tenant claims they were “tricked” into signing the tenancy agreement.
The landlord denies they made any false representations to the tenant about water being included in the rent or a garage carpark being provided. They claim they have always been clear and transparent with the tenant. The landlord also denies pressuring the tenant to sign the tenancy agreement. Analysis
I am not convinced, on the balance of probabilities, that the landlord made any false representation to the tenant about water being included in the rent or a garage carpark being included with the tenancy. Insufficient evidence was submitted to convince me of this. No written evidence of the landlord advising the tenant, before the tenancy agreement was signed, that water was included in the rent or a garage carpark was included with the tenancy was submitted. No witnesses were called to give evidence that the landlord made these types of representations to the tenant. No objective evidence to support the tenant’s claim that these representations were made was submitted at all.
Email correspondence between the parties was submitted, but it does not support the tenant’s claim that false representations were made. The tenant sent the landlord an email on 14 April 2026 attaching a copy of the signed tenancy agreement. At the same time, the tenant queried the carparking at the premises per the below: ... 1, where are the two parking lot allocation to me find, is it the garage type that I will park the car inside or outside the parking bay
The landlord replied with the following: ...parking is available downstairs, as long as it does not block the garage. We will also provide an additional garage; however, please note that it is quite small and may not be suitable for a vehicle...
This discussion does not support the tenant’s version of events because it does not contain false representation by the landlord that the tenancy included a garage carpark. The landlord clearly states that a garage is included with the tenancy but warns the tenant that it may be too small to park a car.
The tenant sent the landlord an email on 21 April 2026, advising of their wish to withdraw from the tenancy. The reason given by the tenant was that their wife would soon be joining them in New Zealand and felt the house was cramped and had little space. No claim of any misrepresentation by the landlord as to a garage carpark or water being included in the rent was made by the tenant at this time.
For all of these reasons, I am not convinced, on the balance of probabilities, that the landlord made any false representation to the tenant, which induced them to enter into the agreement.
I am also not convinced that the landlord placed any undue pressure on the tenant to sign the tenancy agreement. The landlord denies this was the case and the tenant did not submit any supporting evidence to prove otherwise. The tenant is an adult and is responsible for the signing of the tenancy agreement and any consequences that follow.
For all of these reasons, I decline to set the tenancy agreement aside. Should the tenant pay the landlord $600.00 for the costs reasonably incurred in allowing the tenant to surrender the tenancy? The law
One of the ways in which a fixed-term tenancy may end, is where the tenant surrenders the tenancy, or delivers up vacant possession of the premises, to the landlord with the landlord’s written consent. 1
Where this occurs, the landlord is entitled to recover from the outgoing tenant, any expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord in respect of the termination of the tenancy. 2 A landlord who seeks to recover such expenses, must first provide the tenant with an itemised account of the expenses. 3 Analysis
The parties signed a fixed-term tenancy agreement on 14 April 2026. The agreement was binding upon the parties following their signing.
On 21 April 2026, before the tenancy was due to begin, the tenant advised the landlord that they no longer wished to proceed with the tenancy. The landlord gave their written consent to the tenant’s request to withdraw from the tenancy but advised the tenant that they would be liable to pay costs totalling approximately $600.00 to cover the costs incurred in finding a new tenant, as well as rent until a new tenancy began. Because the tenant did not live in the premises, the landlord later agreed not to recover any rent.
I find that the tenant surrendered the tenancy with the landlord’s written consent on 21 April 2026. It follows that the landlord is entitled to recover from the tenant the costs reasonably incurred in ending the fixed-term tenancy early.
The landlord submitted an invoice for $600.00 to cover advertising costs, as well as time and labour spent vetting prospective tenants. The landlord submitted a copy of an email sent to the tenant on 4 May 2026 providing them with this invoice, which includes an itemised account. The tenant questions whether the landlord actually undertook the work they say they did. The invoice is sufficient evidence to convince me, on the balance of probabilities, that they did. The landlord also provided a copy of an invoice for $264.50 to advertise the premises 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 50(1)(d). 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 44A(1). 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 44A(2). on various renting platforms such as, myRent and Trade Me. This fee is included in the total fee of $600.00.
For all of these reasons, I find the tenant is liable to pay the landlord $600.00 for the costs reasonably incurred in ending the fixed-term tenancy early. Filing fee
The landlord has been wholly successful with their application. Therefore, I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5503350 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 85 Green Lane East, Remuera, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5503350 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 85 Green Lane East, Remuera, Auckland

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions