What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5308756?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5308756?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5308756?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5308756?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13002129-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5308756?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5308756?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5308756?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5308756?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13002129-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

52A Tawa Crescent, Manurewa, Auckland 2102 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5308756 — Exemplary damages

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The applicant claimed that the landlord terminated their tenancy agreement before it had commenced and seeks exemplary damages and compensation for the breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The background to this claim is that the tenants applied for a tenancy at 52A Tawa Crescent, Manurewa on 10 June 2025. There is no dispute that that landlord had advertised the property for rent and had received the tenant’s application for the rental of the property.
On 12 th June 2025, the tenants received an email congratulating them on being the top choice by the landlord/property manager for the tenancy. The email stated that the offer for the property precedes the tenancy agreement and is not legally binding. If the tenants intend to accept the offer of the tenancy which was to start on 2 July 2025 (or another date to be discussed), they had to accept the offer and pay the bond. The email confirmed that the tenants would receive a tenancy agreement to review the terms and conditions.
After confirming their intention to accept an offer for renting the property, the tenants got an email congratulating them on accepting the lease offer.
The tenants paid the first weeks rent in advance of $920.00 on 12 June 2025 and the bond of $3680.00 on 21 June 2025.
On 23 June, the tenants got a call from the landlord asking to meet with them. The parties met and the landlord advised the tenants that there was a sale and purchase agreement presented to the landlord for the sale of the property.
The landlord advised that they had intended to sell the property earlier in 2025 and had engaged the services of a real estate company to sell the property. Despite efforts to sell the property, it did not sell. The landlord ended the agreement with the real estate company in May 2025 and withdrew the house from the market.
The landlord advertised the property for rent through another company Cocoon Services Limited. After offering the tenants the property for rent, a real estate agent presented the sale and purchase agreement to the landlord.
The tenants and the landlord disagree about the conversation that was had on the night of the 23 June 2025. The landlord said that they had told the tenants about the conditional offer but that they would not proceed with it if they did not have the agreement of the tenants. The landlord added an additional clause in the sales and purchase agreement that they had two days to confirm whether they would accept the offer made by the prospective purchaser, which was to get the consent or otherwise from the tenants to proceed with the sale.
The tenants claim that the landlord told them that it was 50/50 whether the sale would proceed, and they would find out on 28 th June 2025. The offer of the tenancy would remain in place on the chance that the sale does not progress. The unconditional date for the sale was the 30 th of June 2025.
The sale proceeded and the tenancy offer was withdrawn on 30 th June 2025.
The landlord said he would assist the tenants to find another property, but the tenants had been able to withdraw their notice to terminate at their existing tenancy.
The tenants claim that they had a tenancy agreement and not an offer of a tenancy and on the basis of the tenancy agreement they had moved their possessions into the property, before the start of the tenancy. They have incurred two lots of moving costs which they seek to be refunded to them, compensation for stress, loss of income from the subtenancy he had entered into and loss of work. The tenants seek exemplary damages for the landlord’s breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, (RTA).
The landlord claims this was only an offer for a tenancy, that no tenancy agreement/contract had been completed. Furthermore, that the tenants agreed with the sales and purchase agreement progressing and that they would take up the tenancy if the sale does not proceed. Relevant legal consideration/ Burden and standard of proof:
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant 3 to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
The issues I must determine are: a) Was there a contract between the parties for a tenancy or where they still negotiating the terms of the contract? b) If so, did the advice from the landlord on 23 June 2025 change/vary that contract? Contract- was there a contract between the parties.
The relevant law is the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017, which is the law relating to contracts.
A contract is formed when both parties decide to exchange something of value, creating an obligation to perform a particular duty which is legally enforceable. The terms of the contract define the rights and obligations of the parties.
A breach of contract arises when one party has failed to perform their obligations under the contract. In order to make a successful claim for breach of contract the applicant must prove that a term of the contract has been broken and that there is financial loss suffered as a result of that breach.
In law the contract terms are the specific legally binding provisions defining the parties’ rights and obligations. The key elements making a contract valid includes the offer, acceptance, consideration, and intent.
The email on 12 June congratulating the tenants on being the top choice of the landlord and later the email congratulating them on accepting the lease offer, is clearly offer and acceptance of a contract. The initial terms of the contract were defined in the email of 12 June setting out costs, term of tenancy (albeit subject to negotiation) and process moving towards finalising the contract.
Payment of the rent in advance and bond is the consideration of the contract. While I accept that the final terms of the tenancy agreement had not been finalised, I do consider that the parties had a contract for a tenancy between themselves.
However, even though I have determined that there was a contract formed, did that contract change/vary on 23rd June 2025. On that night, the landlord advised the tenants of the sale and purchase agreement and obtained their consent to progress the sale and that they would take up the tenancy if the sale is not successful.
The tenants did not accept that they agreed to allow the sales process to continue and that they would only take up the tenancy if the sale was unsuccessful. However, the tenants were told of the sale and purchase agreement, they chose to wait for advice as to whether the sale was successful or otherwise. If the sale proceeded, as it did, clearly the tenants would not have expected to move into the property.
I accept the evidence of the landlord on this issue. There is no dispute that the landlord told the tenants of the offer on 23 rd June and included the 2 days clause in the sales and purchase contract to allow them to get the consent from the tenants to proceed with the sales process.
I consider that there was a variation to the original contract. The tenants knew of the conditional agreement for the sale of the house and kept in contact with the landlord until the advice on the 30 th of June that the contract was unconditional.
After consideration of all the evidence I find that the tenants accepted that the property maybe sold and therefore the original contract could not proceed if the property went unconditional on 30 June 2025.
After the sale went unconditional the tenants had to move their possessions from the property that they had moved in before the start of the prospective tenancy. Costs:
The tenants claim for the cost of moving furniture to the property and from the property. I am dismissing that claim because there is no dispute that the tenancy would not have started before 4 July 2025 and the tenants moved their furniture into the property prior to that date. The tenants must carry the cost of moving the furniture to the property without a valid contract or tenancy agreement in place.
The loss of income from the subtenant’s contract is dismissed. There has been no loss to the tenants. Similarly, the tenants took it upon themselves to take time off work to find a sub-tenant and to move furniture before there even was a tenancy in place.
I have determined that there has been no breach of the RTA, therefore exemplary damages are not applicable.
Finally, the tenants seek to claim for stress and inconvenience. I am dismissing this claim also as initially I believe the landlord was acting in good faith when attempting to enter into a tenancy agreement with the tenants.
The circumstances changed when there was the offer to purchase the property. The tenants knew of the offer to purchase the property shortly after the landlord.
The tenants would definitely have been stressed as a result of the prospective tenancy, moving possession into the property in expectation of the start of the tenancy. Moving homes is inherently stressful.
The Tribunal may award compensation for actual loss suffered as a result of a breach of the tenancy agreement of the RTA. However, compensation for stress or inconvenience is only awarded in limited circumstances, and there must be clear evidence of actual harm or loss. In this case, no medical evidence or other supporting documentation has been provided to demonstrate that the tenants suffered actual harm or loss as a result of the landlord’s actions. Accordingly, no compensation for stress is awarded.
The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the landlord has breached the RTA by terminating the tenancy agreement before it commenced. It is incumbent on the tenants to provide the evidence needed to prove their claim. The tenants have failed to do that and so I must dismiss their claim.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5308756 — Exemplary damages at 52A Tawa Crescent, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5308756 — Exemplary damages at 52A Tawa Crescent, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions