What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5244572?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5244572?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5244572?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5244572?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11970565-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5244572?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5244572?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5244572?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5244572?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11970565-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

41 Woodgrove Avenue, North New Brighton, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 5244572 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application is dismissed.
Anthony George Weastel is added as a tenant party to these proceedings.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 5 June 2025. The executor of the estate of Adrienne Elizabeth Mather attended the hearing. The other tenant on the tenancy agreement, Anthony George Weastel, also attended the hearing.
The tenancy agreement records Anthony George Weastel as a tenant. Mr Weastel attended the hearing and is therefore added as a tenant party to these proceedings.
The executor of the estate of Adrienne Elizabeth Mather seeks a refund of $800.00, being half the bond paid at the beginning of the tenancy.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy agreement was signed by the late Adrienne Elizabeth Mather and Anthony George Weastell on 17 March 2021. It records that the tenancy began on 19 March 2021 and was for a fixed-term until 20 March 2022.
There were subsequent renewals of the fixed term until 4 March 2025, when an agreement was reached between the parties that the tenancy would become periodic from 2 May 2025.
Adrienne Eizabeth Mather died on 9 March 2025.
The co-tenant, Anthony George Weastell, remains in the premises and is continuing to pay rent to the landlord.
The executor of the estate of Adrienne Elizabeth Mather claims that the late Adrienne Elizabeth Mather paid $800.00 towards the bond at the beginning of the tenancy. The executor submits that this money belongs to the estate and should be returned accordingly.
The executor of the estate of Adrienne Elizabeth Mather submitted an email dated 27 May 2025 from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. It states: This is to confirm that bond contribution on file for your mother Adrienne Elizabeth Mather is $800.00 for the address of 41 Woodgrove Avenue, North New Brighton, Christchurch.
The executor of the estate of Adrienne Elizabeth Mather has sent the landlord a Bond Refund form for $800.00. The landlord has declined to sign it because the surviving tenant, Adrienne George Weastell, disputes that $800.00 should be returned to the estate of Adrienne Elizabeth Mather.
Mr Weastell claims that he paid the entire bond of $1,600.00 at the beginning of the tenancy. Mr Mather claims that if the bond is to be refunded, it should go to him entirely.

ANALYSIS

The term “tenant”, is defined in section 2 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) as follows: Tenant, in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, means the grantee of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement; and, where appropriate, includes – ... (d) the personal representative of a deceased tenant; and ...
The executor of the estate of Adrienne Elizabeth Mather is the personal representative of the deceased tenant, Adrienne Elizabeth Mather.
The tenancy is a periodic tenancy. No notice to end the tenancy has been given. This means that the tenancy has continued since the death of Adrienne Elizabeth Mather, with the parties to the tenancy being: a. Landlord: Braziers Limited as agent for Martin Kim b. Tenant 1: Anthony George Weastell c. Tenant 2: The executor of the estate of Adrienne Elizabeth Maher
A bond of $1,600.00 was paid by both tenants at the beginning of the tenancy. Whilst the bond is unquestionably the tenant’s money, it is held with the Bond Centre as security for the tenancy. As the tenancy has not ended, the bond is unable to be released, unless the landlord and tenant agree, which they do not.
The bond must stay with the Bond Centre until the end of the tenancy. The Tribunal cannot order a refund of part or all of the bond to the landlord or tenant until the tenancy ends.
If the executor of the estate of Adrienne Elizabeth Mather wants to end the tenancy and access the bond, they may give the landlord 21 days’ to end the tenancy under section 51(2A) RTA.
If the executor of the estate of Adrienne Elizabeth Mather gives the landlord 21 days’ notice to end the tenancy and Anthony George Weastell wants to remain in the premises at the end of the 21 days, Mr Weastell will need to sign a new tenancy agreement with the landlord and pay a new bond. If Mr Weastell wishes to use the bond paid at the beginning of this tenancy to do that, it is in his interests to try to reach an agreement with the landlord and executor of the estate of Adrienne Elizabeth Mather as to how the bond should be split between the parties at the end of the tenancy. If no agreement can be reached, the bond will remain with the Bond Centre until proceedings are filed in the appropriate forum.
The appropriate forum may be the Tenancy Tribunal or Disputes Tribunal, depending upon the nature of the dispute and relevant parties. If the tenant disputes any claim made by the landlord to the bond, then the appropriate forum would usually the Tenancy Tribunal. If the dispute is between the two tenants as to how the bond should be split between them, then the appropriate forum would usually the Disputes Tribunal.
If there is a dispute regarding the bond at the end of the tenancy, to avoid delay it would be wise to seek legal advice regarding the appropriate forum to file any claim.

FILING FEE

The applicant has not been wholly or substantially successful with their claim and therefore, I do not order the respondent reimburse the filing fee.
The applicant’s written application requested name suppression. As the applicant has not been wholly or substantially successful in their claim, I am not required to grant name suppression under section 95A(1) RTA.
I have a residual discretion to grant the applicant name suppression under section 95A(4) RTA. This section requires me to consider the interests of the parties and public. In Lewis v Wilson & Horton [2003] 3 NZLR 546 at paragraph 43, The Court of Appeal endorsed the approach taken in the High Court, which held: ...that the principle of open justice dictates that there should be no restriction on publication of information about a case ‘except in very special circumstances.’
No exceptional or very special circumstances are apparent from the facts of this case. I have considered the interests of the parties and the public. In this case, I find that the public interest in publication outweighs the parties’ interest in suppression.
I decline to order name suppression.

Order

The application is dismissed.
Anthony George Weastel is added as a tenant party to these proceedings.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing on 5 June 2025. The executor of the estate of Adrienne Elizabeth Mather attended the hearing. The other tenant on the tenancy agreement, Anthony George Weastel, also attended the hearing.
The tenancy agreement records Anthony George Weastel as a tenant. Mr Weastel attended the hearing and is therefore added as a tenant party to these proceedings.
The executor of the estate of Adrienne Elizabeth Mather seeks a refund of $800.00, being half the bond paid at the beginning of the tenancy.

BACKGROUND

The tenancy agreement was signed by the late Adrienne Elizabeth Mather and Anthony George Weastell on 17 March 2021. It records that the tenancy began on 19 March 2021 and was for a fixed-term until 20 March 2022.
There were subsequent renewals of the fixed term until 4 March 2025, when an agreement was reached between the parties that the tenancy would become periodic from 2 May 2025.
Adrienne Eizabeth Mather died on 9 March 2025.
The co-tenant, Anthony George Weastell, remains in the premises and is continuing to pay rent to the landlord.
The executor of the estate of Adrienne Elizabeth Mather claims that the late Adrienne Elizabeth Mather paid $800.00 towards the bond at the beginning of the tenancy. The executor submits that this money belongs to the estate and should be returned accordingly.
The executor of the estate of Adrienne Elizabeth Mather submitted an email dated 27 May 2025 from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. It states: This is to confirm that bond contribution on file for your mother Adrienne Elizabeth Mather is $800.00 for the address of 41 Woodgrove Avenue, North New Brighton, Christchurch.
The executor of the estate of Adrienne Elizabeth Mather has sent the landlord a Bond Refund form for $800.00. The landlord has declined to sign it because the surviving tenant, Adrienne George Weastell, disputes that $800.00 should be returned to the estate of Adrienne Elizabeth Mather.
Mr Weastell claims that he paid the entire bond of $1,600.00 at the beginning of the tenancy. Mr Mather claims that if the bond is to be refunded, it should go to him entirely.

ANALYSIS

The term “tenant”, is defined in section 2 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) as follows: Tenant, in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, means the grantee of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement; and, where appropriate, includes – ... (d) the personal representative of a deceased tenant; and ...
The executor of the estate of Adrienne Elizabeth Mather is the personal representative of the deceased tenant, Adrienne Elizabeth Mather.
The tenancy is a periodic tenancy. No notice to end the tenancy has been given. This means that the tenancy has continued since the death of Adrienne Elizabeth Mather, with the parties to the tenancy being: a. Landlord: Braziers Limited as agent for Martin Kim b. Tenant 1: Anthony George Weastell c. Tenant 2: The executor of the estate of Adrienne Elizabeth Maher
A bond of $1,600.00 was paid by both tenants at the beginning of the tenancy. Whilst the bond is unquestionably the tenant’s money, it is held with the Bond Centre as security for the tenancy. As the tenancy has not ended, the bond is unable to be released, unless the landlord and tenant agree, which they do not.
The bond must stay with the Bond Centre until the end of the tenancy. The Tribunal cannot order a refund of part or all of the bond to the landlord or tenant until the tenancy ends.
If the executor of the estate of Adrienne Elizabeth Mather wants to end the tenancy and access the bond, they may give the landlord 21 days’ to end the tenancy under section 51(2A) RTA.
If the executor of the estate of Adrienne Elizabeth Mather gives the landlord 21 days’ notice to end the tenancy and Anthony George Weastell wants to remain in the premises at the end of the 21 days, Mr Weastell will need to sign a new tenancy agreement with the landlord and pay a new bond. If Mr Weastell wishes to use the bond paid at the beginning of this tenancy to do that, it is in his interests to try to reach an agreement with the landlord and executor of the estate of Adrienne Elizabeth Mather as to how the bond should be split between the parties at the end of the tenancy. If no agreement can be reached, the bond will remain with the Bond Centre until proceedings are filed in the appropriate forum.
The appropriate forum may be the Tenancy Tribunal or Disputes Tribunal, depending upon the nature of the dispute and relevant parties. If the tenant disputes any claim made by the landlord to the bond, then the appropriate forum would usually the Tenancy Tribunal. If the dispute is between the two tenants as to how the bond should be split between them, then the appropriate forum would usually the Disputes Tribunal.
If there is a dispute regarding the bond at the end of the tenancy, to avoid delay it would be wise to seek legal advice regarding the appropriate forum to file any claim.

FILING FEE

The applicant has not been wholly or substantially successful with their claim and therefore, I do not order the respondent reimburse the filing fee.
The applicant’s written application requested name suppression. As the applicant has not been wholly or substantially successful in their claim, I am not required to grant name suppression under section 95A(1) RTA.
I have a residual discretion to grant the applicant name suppression under section 95A(4) RTA. This section requires me to consider the interests of the parties and public. In Lewis v Wilson & Horton [2003] 3 NZLR 546 at paragraph 43, The Court of Appeal endorsed the approach taken in the High Court, which held: ...that the principle of open justice dictates that there should be no restriction on publication of information about a case ‘except in very special circumstances.’
No exceptional or very special circumstances are apparent from the facts of this case. I have considered the interests of the parties and the public. In this case, I find that the public interest in publication outweighs the parties’ interest in suppression.
I decline to order name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5244572 — Tenancy dispute at 41 Woodgrove Avenue, North New Brighton, Christchurch

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5244572 — Tenancy dispute at 41 Woodgrove Avenue, North New Brighton, Christchurch

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

ANALYSIS

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

ANALYSIS

FILING FEE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions