Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5509911 — Tenancy dispute
Decided 8 Jul 2026 · Published 8 Jul 2026 · Application 5509911
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
J Setefano
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
- The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names and identifying details.
- The application is dismissed.
Reasons
- The hearing was conducted by video conference. The applicant did not attend the hearing. The Tribunal attempted to contact the applicant on the contact number provided but the call was unanswered and diverted to voicemail. No request for an adjournment or explanation for non-attendance was received. See sections 78(1)(i) and 92(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- [Tenant 1] did not attend the hearing.
- [Tenant 2] attended the hearing.
- The burden of proof lies with the applicant to establish the claim on the balance of probabilities. In this case, the absence of the applicant means the evidential threshold required by the Act has not been met.
- Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the claim has been proven to the required standard. The application is therefore dismissed.
- Given the landlord has not proven it’s claim, it is reasonable to grant suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.