Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5552397 — Exemplary damages
Decided 13 Aug 2026 · Published 13 Aug 2026 · Application 5552397
- Exemplary damages
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 Yi
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 names and identifying details of both parties.
- The application is dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing via video conference on 5 August 2026.
- On 2 July 2026, the landlord gave the tenant a notice ending the tenancy on 30 September 2026. The tenant claims the notice is retaliatory.
- For a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord. See section 54(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
- Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(2), (3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
- Where a party has issued a retaliatory notice, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so taking into account the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. For completeness giving of a retaliatory notice does not have to be intentional to award exemplary damages for a breach. See section 109(3) and (3A) RTA.
- The tenancy was originally for a fixed-term tenancy from 1 July 2025 to 30 June 2026.
- On 1 June 2026, the landlord offered a further one-year fixed tenancy to the tenant. The landlord flagged that there would be an increase of $20 per week from 5 August 2026 if the tenant was to stay on. The landlord attached a recent market rent statistics to explain the proposed four percent rent increase.
- On 30 June 2026, the tenant declined the landlord’s offer and but wanted to stay on as a periodic tenancy. The tenant explained that she would like to have a bit more space with an extra bedroom as a reason that she wanted it to go to a periodic tenancy instead of staying on for another year.
- When the landlord gave the termination notice on 2 July 2026, the tenant said that that was because the landlord received a call from another rental agent on 23 June 2026 seeking for a reference check for the tenant’s potential subsequent tenancy.
- The landlord explained that she understood that the tenant was seeking for somewhere with more space and that the landlord’s decision to terminate the periodic tenancy was purely a commercial one.
- Under section 60A RTA, the landlord could have terminated the tenancy at the end of the fixed-term by giving the tenant a notice to not continue the tenancy between 21 and 90 days before the expiry of the fixed-term.
- Under section 51 RTA, a landlord has the right to terminate a periodic tenancy with 90 days’ notice, as well as the tenant having the right to terminate the tenancy with 21 days’ notice.
- I do not find that there was any wrongdoing by the landlord in giving a 90 days’ termination notice once the tenancy became periodic. I do not find that there is any evidence of retaliation.
- Therefore, this application is dismissed. The termination notice stands as valid.