Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5517994 — Tenancy dispute
Decided 30 Jun 2026 · Published 30 Jun 2026 · Application 5517994
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
H Ben Fayed
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
- Both parties’ details are suppressed.
- The claim is struck out for want of Jurisdiction.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- The applicant states that she withdrew from the tenancy under the family violence provisions in s 56B. The landlord accepted the withdrawal notice, and that is not in dispute.
- The applicant seeks an order refunding to her one-half of the bond and the application filing fee. She says that she contributed half of the bond, which was confirmed by the remaining tenant, who appeared as a witness for the respondent.
- A bond is the joint property of the tenants and is held by the Bond Centre as security for the landlord. Because it is joint property, its constituent parts are not separately identified and cannot be distinguished. The apportionment of the bond as between co-tenants is a matter between those tenants. When the Tribunal orders the refund of a bond, it will ordinarily direct that the bond be refunded jointly unless the co-tenants have agreed upon an apportionment and advise the Tribunal accordingly.
- Section 56B provides a mechanism by which a tenant may withdraw from a tenancy on the grounds of family violence. Upon withdrawal, the tenant is released from liability under the tenancy from the effective date of withdrawal and the landlord immediately incurs the statutory consequences prescribed by the section, including the reduction in rent for the subsequent period. However, Parliament has not provided that the bond is to be apportioned in any particular way when a tenant withdraws under s 56B. Accordingly, the bond remains whole and in place as security for the landlord.
- Given my finding that the bond is joint property, the respective interests of the co- tenants in the bond cannot be distinguished in circumstances such as these and displace the landlords security. Further, s 56B contains no scheme for determining the apportionment of the bond following a tenant's withdrawal under that provision.
- The consequence is that any claim by the withdrawing tenant to a share of the bond is, in substance, a claim against the co tenants. Section 77(1)(a) confers jurisdiction on the Tribunal to determine disputes between landlords and tenants. It does not confer jurisdiction to determine disputes between tenants.
- Accordingly, if the applicant asserts an entitlement to a share of the bond, that is a claim against the remaining tenant or tenants and must be pursued, if at all, in the Family Court or the Disputes Tribunal.
- Because the claim has not succeeded the filing fee is not awarded.
- In these circumstances it is appropriate to to grant suppression to both parties. (see s 95A(1A) and s 95A(4) RTA 1986)