What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5541018 about?

The tribunal order states: The application to reduce the fixed term tenancy is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5541018?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5541018?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5541018?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13945572-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5541018 about?

The tribunal order states: The application to reduce the fixed term tenancy is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5541018?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5541018?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5541018?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13945572-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

5 Swan Way, Rolleston, Rolleston 7615 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5541018 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application to reduce the fixed term tenancy is dismissed.
No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

Should the fixed term tenancy be ended early?

The tenants have applied for reduction of their fixed-term tenancy, due to end on 1 December 2026. The basis for their application for the Tribunal to end their tenancy early is: a. They purchased a house and gave notice to the landlord on or around 12 June 2026, when they purchased a house; b. They informed the landlord they intended to move out on or around 16 July 2026, around a week after the settlement date; c. They could not afford to pay their mortgage and the rent until the end of the fixed term, especially when the female tenant is a stay-at-home mother and is due to have a second baby soon; d. The tenants have been proactive in trying to help the landlord find new tenants to take over the remainder of the fixed term lease; e. The landlord had refused to end the fixed term lease early and told the tenants they would be held liable for a reduced rent until the end of the fixed term lease, or until new tenants move into the premise; f. The landlord has advertised the property but had not found anyone willing to take on the tenancy, even at a reduced rental rate. This is due to oversupply in the area and market rents having declined since the renewal of this tenancy; g. The tenants moved out of the premise around 9 July 2026 (settlement date) and have been finding it hard to pay the rent.
The tenants do not consider that the landlord has done everything within its power to re-let the property and say it should of when it was adequate notice of the tenants’ intention to move out of the premise before the end of the lease. In short, the tenants say the landlord has not been as proactive as it could have been to mitigate its losses after the tenants gave one months’ notice.
The landlord has confirmed it has been actively trying to .find new tenants and has been unable to find suitable tenants in the current rental market in Rolleston. At todays’ hearing, the landlord informed the tenants that it has verbal agreement with some proposed new tenants that can move in on 1 August 2026. The landlord is waiting to get a signed copy of the tenancy agreement before confirming the end of this fixed term tenancy. The law
Parties enter a fixed term tenancy for security. For tenants this is security of tenure; they can be sure they have a home for at least the agreed term. For landlords it is security of income; they can rely on a set amount of income from their investment.
If a tenant wishes to default on that contract, and the landlord accepts the repudiation, then the tenancy ends on the terms agreed. In such a situation of surrender the landlord does not have to agree and can stipulate terms provided they are reasonable. Such reasonable terms can be to ensure the aggrieved party (here the landlord) be placed in the same position as they would have been in, but for the breach of the tenancy agreement.
If the parties cannot agree to end the tenancy, it is open to the tenants to apply to the Tribunal to reduce the term pursuant to section 66(1) RTA.
The Tribunal reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced.
Section 66 sets a high threshold for reducing fixed term tenancies. The jurisdiction in this section is an extension to the doctrine of frustration found in the general law of contract. In most cases, s66 is used to seek a balance between the competing interests of applicant tenants, for whom significant obligations under fixed term agreements can create severe hardship when circumstances unexpectedly turn against them, and landlords, who have financial obligations and expectations of their own arising from the same bargain.
The term “unforeseen” is a legal term defined by reference to the reverse (“foreseeability”) in cases relating to negligence (in determining whether a duty of care is owed and what damages are reasonably foreseeable) and in cases assessing damages for breach of contract (also in assessing the remoteness of damage). In both contexts, there is a body of case law which has established that: a. Foreseeability must be assessed objectively through the eyes of a reasonable person who has taken all reasonable steps to inform himself of the circumstances; b. an outcome is foreseeable in legal terms if it is “liable to result”, “not unlikely”, “quite likely”, a “real danger”, a “serious possibility” or a “real risk”; c. The term “unforeseen” has few if any direct dictionary definitions, but by thesaurus is aligned with such concepts as “unexpected” and “without warning”. In a legal context, it must also be taken as the reverse of what is “foreseen”, thus being “not liable to result”, “unlikely”, “not a real danger”, “not a serious possibility” or “not a real risk”. Analysis & findings
The parties here could not come to an agreement to end the tenancy.
The tenants took all reasonably practicable steps to find tenants to take over the lease but were unsuccessful.
The tenants moved out of the premise on 9 July 2026 and were prepared to pay rent to 16 July 2026 to allow them time to move their belongings, clean and tidy the premise and hand back vacant possession.
The tenants have sought relief from the Tribunal in the form of an application pursuant to s66 for their tenancy to be ended earlier than 1 December 2026.
I turn to the application of s66 of the RTA to this situation. Having considered the facts, I find: a. There has not been an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances. b. An opportunity to purchase a home became able to be realised due to some friends of the tenants being willing to sell their home to the tenants at below market rate. c. It was clearly foreseeable that if they purchased their friend’s property prior to the end of their fixed term tenancy, they were taking a risk that they may be held to their fixed term tenancy until 1 December 2026 and would therefore have to pay rent and a mortgage until a date the landlord could find new tenants to take over the lease, or sublet the rental premise, or rent out their new home until the end of their tenancy. d. I am satisfied that the tenants knew they could not end their fixed term tenancy until replacement tenants were secured and that was a known factor in this equation. It was always possible that it may take some time to obtain new tenants in the current rental market and that they would remain liable for the rent until new tenant were found or the lease term ended. This was a calculated risk they took which unfortunately has not progressed in their favour. e. What has changed for the tenants is that they now have a mortgage to pay and rent. This was foreseeable when they signed a contract to purchase a home whilst still being bound by a fixed-term tenancy contract.
Section 66 of the RTA is clear that it must the applicants’ circumstances that have changed in an unforeseeable way, not external factors such as the rental market not being conducive to the tenants being able to sublet the premise for the remainer of the fixed term lease or for new tenants to take over the remainder of the lease.
The tenants have proven they will suffer severe hardship if the term of the tenancy is not reduced.
The landlord has also confirmed it would suffer severe hardship if the term is reduced.
Section 66 of the RTA is clear in requiring the Tribunal to establish an unforeseen change in circumstances before the respective hardships are weighed.
I empathise with both parties’ circumstances, but particularly the tenants’, however, as an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances has not been established, I have no jurisdiction to end the tenancy, and this claim must be dismissed.
I dismiss the tenants claim to reduce their fixed term tenancy for all the reasons set out above.

Order

The application to reduce the fixed term tenancy is dismissed.
No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

Should the fixed term tenancy be ended early?

The tenants have applied for reduction of their fixed-term tenancy, due to end on 1 December 2026. The basis for their application for the Tribunal to end their tenancy early is: a. They purchased a house and gave notice to the landlord on or around 12 June 2026, when they purchased a house; b. They informed the landlord they intended to move out on or around 16 July 2026, around a week after the settlement date; c. They could not afford to pay their mortgage and the rent until the end of the fixed term, especially when the female tenant is a stay-at-home mother and is due to have a second baby soon; d. The tenants have been proactive in trying to help the landlord find new tenants to take over the remainder of the fixed term lease; e. The landlord had refused to end the fixed term lease early and told the tenants they would be held liable for a reduced rent until the end of the fixed term lease, or until new tenants move into the premise; f. The landlord has advertised the property but had not found anyone willing to take on the tenancy, even at a reduced rental rate. This is due to oversupply in the area and market rents having declined since the renewal of this tenancy; g. The tenants moved out of the premise around 9 July 2026 (settlement date) and have been finding it hard to pay the rent.
The tenants do not consider that the landlord has done everything within its power to re-let the property and say it should of when it was adequate notice of the tenants’ intention to move out of the premise before the end of the lease. In short, the tenants say the landlord has not been as proactive as it could have been to mitigate its losses after the tenants gave one months’ notice.
The landlord has confirmed it has been actively trying to .find new tenants and has been unable to find suitable tenants in the current rental market in Rolleston. At todays’ hearing, the landlord informed the tenants that it has verbal agreement with some proposed new tenants that can move in on 1 August 2026. The landlord is waiting to get a signed copy of the tenancy agreement before confirming the end of this fixed term tenancy. The law
Parties enter a fixed term tenancy for security. For tenants this is security of tenure; they can be sure they have a home for at least the agreed term. For landlords it is security of income; they can rely on a set amount of income from their investment.
If a tenant wishes to default on that contract, and the landlord accepts the repudiation, then the tenancy ends on the terms agreed. In such a situation of surrender the landlord does not have to agree and can stipulate terms provided they are reasonable. Such reasonable terms can be to ensure the aggrieved party (here the landlord) be placed in the same position as they would have been in, but for the breach of the tenancy agreement.
If the parties cannot agree to end the tenancy, it is open to the tenants to apply to the Tribunal to reduce the term pursuant to section 66(1) RTA.
The Tribunal reduce a fixed term tenancy where: a. there has been an unforeseen change in the applicant’s circumstances; and b. there would be severe hardship to the applicant if the term is not reduced; and c. the applicant’s hardship would be greater than the hardship to the other party if the term is reduced.
Section 66 sets a high threshold for reducing fixed term tenancies. The jurisdiction in this section is an extension to the doctrine of frustration found in the general law of contract. In most cases, s66 is used to seek a balance between the competing interests of applicant tenants, for whom significant obligations under fixed term agreements can create severe hardship when circumstances unexpectedly turn against them, and landlords, who have financial obligations and expectations of their own arising from the same bargain.
The term “unforeseen” is a legal term defined by reference to the reverse (“foreseeability”) in cases relating to negligence (in determining whether a duty of care is owed and what damages are reasonably foreseeable) and in cases assessing damages for breach of contract (also in assessing the remoteness of damage). In both contexts, there is a body of case law which has established that: a. Foreseeability must be assessed objectively through the eyes of a reasonable person who has taken all reasonable steps to inform himself of the circumstances; b. an outcome is foreseeable in legal terms if it is “liable to result”, “not unlikely”, “quite likely”, a “real danger”, a “serious possibility” or a “real risk”; c. The term “unforeseen” has few if any direct dictionary definitions, but by thesaurus is aligned with such concepts as “unexpected” and “without warning”. In a legal context, it must also be taken as the reverse of what is “foreseen”, thus being “not liable to result”, “unlikely”, “not a real danger”, “not a serious possibility” or “not a real risk”. Analysis & findings
The parties here could not come to an agreement to end the tenancy.
The tenants took all reasonably practicable steps to find tenants to take over the lease but were unsuccessful.
The tenants moved out of the premise on 9 July 2026 and were prepared to pay rent to 16 July 2026 to allow them time to move their belongings, clean and tidy the premise and hand back vacant possession.
The tenants have sought relief from the Tribunal in the form of an application pursuant to s66 for their tenancy to be ended earlier than 1 December 2026.
I turn to the application of s66 of the RTA to this situation. Having considered the facts, I find: a. There has not been an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances. b. An opportunity to purchase a home became able to be realised due to some friends of the tenants being willing to sell their home to the tenants at below market rate. c. It was clearly foreseeable that if they purchased their friend’s property prior to the end of their fixed term tenancy, they were taking a risk that they may be held to their fixed term tenancy until 1 December 2026 and would therefore have to pay rent and a mortgage until a date the landlord could find new tenants to take over the lease, or sublet the rental premise, or rent out their new home until the end of their tenancy. d. I am satisfied that the tenants knew they could not end their fixed term tenancy until replacement tenants were secured and that was a known factor in this equation. It was always possible that it may take some time to obtain new tenants in the current rental market and that they would remain liable for the rent until new tenant were found or the lease term ended. This was a calculated risk they took which unfortunately has not progressed in their favour. e. What has changed for the tenants is that they now have a mortgage to pay and rent. This was foreseeable when they signed a contract to purchase a home whilst still being bound by a fixed-term tenancy contract.
Section 66 of the RTA is clear that it must the applicants’ circumstances that have changed in an unforeseeable way, not external factors such as the rental market not being conducive to the tenants being able to sublet the premise for the remainer of the fixed term lease or for new tenants to take over the remainder of the lease.
The tenants have proven they will suffer severe hardship if the term of the tenancy is not reduced.
The landlord has also confirmed it would suffer severe hardship if the term is reduced.
Section 66 of the RTA is clear in requiring the Tribunal to establish an unforeseen change in circumstances before the respective hardships are weighed.
I empathise with both parties’ circumstances, but particularly the tenants’, however, as an unforeseen change in the tenants’ circumstances has not been established, I have no jurisdiction to end the tenancy, and this claim must be dismissed.
I dismiss the tenants claim to reduce their fixed term tenancy for all the reasons set out above.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5541018 — Tenancy dispute at 5 Swan Way, Rolleston, Rolleston 7615

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5541018 — Tenancy dispute at 5 Swan Way, Rolleston, Rolleston 7615

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should the fixed term tenancy be ended early?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Should the fixed term tenancy be ended early?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions