Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5361605 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 1, 11 Amyes Road, Hornby, Christchurch 8042
Published 23 March 2026 · Application 5361605
Tenant favoured
- Exemplary damages
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Tenant favoured
From published order
Location
Christchurch
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
M Feist
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $1,528.00
- Total balance for Landlord to pay Tenant
- $1,528.00
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Refund of the bond | $1,000.00 | Refund of the bond | |
| Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond | $500.00 | Failure to lodge bond | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $1,528.00 | ||
| Total payable by Landlord to Tenant | $1,528.00 |
Claims and awards for application 5361605 — net $1,528.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Refund of the bond
- Amount
- $1,000.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Refund of the bond
Exemplary damages: Failure to lodge bond
- Amount
- $500.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Failure to lodge bond
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Tenant $1,528.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant
Tenant $1,528.00
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Janet Megan Ager must pay Jason William McWatt $1,528.00 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
Reasons
- On 8 October 2025, the tenant filed an application with the Tribunal seeking: a. Refund of the bond. b. Compensation and exemplary damages for failure to lodge the bond. c. Compensation and exemplary damage for unlawful disposal of the tenants goods. d. Reimbursement of the filing fee.
- The hearing proceeded by video conference. The tenant appeared. The landlord did not appear. The Tribunal was satisfied the landlord was properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in their absence.
- At the commencement of the hearing the Tribunal confirmed who the parties to the claim were after a copy of the tenancy agreement was produced.
- The claim was filed against Ivan Ager. However, the tenancy agreement records the landlord is Janet Megan Ager. Only the named parties on the tenancy agreement can bring a claim against the other.
- The case details have been amended to remove Ivan Ager, and insert the name of Janet Megan Ager, as the named landlord and party to these proceedings. Relevant legal considerations
- The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
- 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.
- 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 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. Did the landlord fail to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre
- The tenant claims the landlord has not lodged the bond with the Bond Centre within the required time.
- The tenant states that he rented the property from Ivan and Janet Ager after finding the property advertised on line. The tenant said that after signing the tenancy agreement he paid the landlord $1,000.00 bond in cash. The amount of bond required was stipulated in the tenancy agreement. No receipt for the bond payment was issued. The tenant said he discovered the bond had not been lodged with the Bond Centre after filing this application.
- A landlord must send any bond payment to the Bond Centre within 23 working days after the payment is received. See section 19(1) of the Act.
- Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $1,500.00. See section 19(2) and Schedule 1A Act.
- Exemplary damages are designed to punish and to deter. They are like a fine. In Auckland City Council v Blundell [1986] NZLR 732 the Court of Appeal (Cooke P) said: Exemplary and punitive [damages] are different words for the same thing. The damages are exemplary because they are meant to teach an example to the guilty officer and others. They are punitive because they are meant to punish. They are like a fine, though they go to the citizen who has been the victim of conduct.
- Exemplary damages are awarded at the Tribunal’s discretion when one party has proved that the other party has committed a defined unlawful act. If that is proven, and before the Tribunal may award exemplary damages, it must take account of the factors set out in section 109 RTA.
- Section 109 of the RTA relates to exemplary damages, and confirms that exemplary damages can be awarded if the unlawful act was committed intentionally, and having regard to: a. The intent of the person committing the unlawful act. b. The effect of the unlawful act. c. The interests of the landlord or tenant against whom the unlawful act was committed. d. The public interest; and e. Whether it is just to make the award.
- The maximum levels of exemplary damages are set out in Schedule 1A of the Act.
- The landlord failed to lodge the bond with the Bond Centre. I find they have committed an unlawful act.
- Based on the evidence received, I am persuaded that the breach was intentional. Lodging bonds is a fundamental obligation for landlords and it is well recognised that bonds must lodged with the Bond Centre. The effect of this unlawful act was that the tenants’ bond money was not secure and the tenant may have difficulty in getting it back from their landlord at the end of the tenancy. There is a strong interest for tenants, landlords, and the public generally that there be a robust bond system, which requires landlords to lodge bonds as required.
- In this case an award of exemplary damages only is appropriate. Having regards to those matters set out in section 109 of the Act, but in particular the interests of the affected party and the public interest, I have found it just to award $500.00 in exemplary damages. This recognises the landlord’s breach but also recognises that there is no evidence that this is habitual behaviour of this landlord. Refund of the Bond to the tenant
- The tenant has applied for refund of the bond. The bond was not lodged with the Bond Centre.
- Section 22B(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that, where a tenant applies for refund of the bond, and the landlord seeks payment from the bond, the landlord must file an application setting out the details of the counterclaim. Because the landlord has not filed a counterclaim the bond is refunded in full to the tenant. Did the landlord unlawfully seize or dispose of the tenant’s goods?
- The tenant claims the landlord has unlawfully disposed of their goods after moving back into the property following his remanded into custody.
- The tenant states the following items are missing: a. Lounge suite - $1,500.00 b. Lazy boy chair - $1,00.00 c. 60-inch LG television - $1,200.00 d. Entertainment unit and Sony stereo - $2,000.00 e. Glass coffee table (large) - $500.00 f. Super King Bed - $5,000.00 g. Bedroom suite - $1,500.00 h. Bedding and linen - $1,000.00 i. 45-inch LG television - $800.00 j. Another stereo system in the garage - $2,500.00 k. Fridge freezer - $1,200.00 l. Washing machine - $1,000.00 m. Coffee maker, kitchen items, pots and pans, electric fryer, air fryer, knives - $2,000.00 n. Motor mower and tools - $1,500.00 o. Rugs - $500.00 p. 2 x computer systems - $2,000.00 q. 1 x laptop - $1,000.00 r. Computer equipment - $1,000.00 s. Hydroponic unit - $2,000.00 t. Artwork/paintings - $1,000.00 u. Outside furniture - $800.00 v. 2 x Samsung phone - $1,750.00 w. Bathroom items, electric razor, after shaves, blow dryer - $500.00 x. Other assorted items - $2,000.00
- The tenant said that following his remand in custody he wrote to his landlord asking them to get in touch regarding the storage of his possession in line with their obligations under the Act. The tenant said that he has had no contact with his landlord concerning the whereabouts of his possessions and he has not contacted them since his release.
- The tenant provided an unsigned undated email from his partner which states that following the tenants remanded in custody she had an altercation with a woman at the address who she believed to be the landlord. She said that following this altercation she found some of the tenants personal belongs in a skip bin near the property.
- A landlord must not seize or dispose of any of the tenant’s goods, except where they are disposed of under sections 62 to 62C of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. See section 33(1) and (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which the Tribunal may award exemplary damages up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 33(2) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- Based on the available evidence the Tribunal finds: a. The tenant has not provided any corroborative evidence proving the items listed at para [26 (a) – (x)] were present in the property when he was remanded in custody. There was no photographs of the items in situ, or affidavit evidence from a witness who saw the items in situ. Nor was the Tribunal provided with any corroborative evidence of ownership of these items such as purchase invoices, manufacturer guarantees/warrantees, receipts or bank records. b. The tenant provided an email from their partner which said they discovered a few low value personal items which belonged to the tenant in a skip bin near the property shortly they were remanded into custody. It is unknown what those items were, how the tenant’s partner ascertained they were the tenant’s belongings or who disposed of them. c. The tenant states they have had no contact with the landlord since they were remanded into custody despite writing and asking to be contacted to arrange safe storage of their belongings. There is no evidence showing the existence of this letter or proof the landlord has received it. In addition the tenant confirmed that following their release from custody they have not contacted their landlord to enquire as to the whereabouts of their belongings. d. The Tribunal has not been provided with any evidence proving the items listed in para [26(a) - (x)] were unlawfully seized or disposed of by the landlord. Based on the available evidence the Tribunal cannot be satisfied on balance of probabilities that the landlord has unlawfully seized or disposed of any of the tenant’s goods and the claim is dismissed. Other matters
- Because Jason William McWatt has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s109, s19(1), s19(2), s22B(2), s31, s33(1), s33(2), s6, s62
Key findings
- Dispute theme: exemplary damages
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5361605?
The tribunal order states: Janet Megan Ager must pay Jason William McWatt $1,528.00 immediately,
How much money was awarded in case 5361605?
Property Damage: $500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5361605?
The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5361605?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13311115-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.