What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5398076?

The tribunal order states: The tenants’ application against Ms Nancy Ye is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5398076?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5398076?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5398076?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13752051-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5398076?

The tribunal order states: The tenants’ application against Ms Nancy Ye is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5398076?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5398076?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5398076?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13752051-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

39 Waihou Crescent, Albany Heights, Auckland 0632 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5398076 — Mould & damp

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

The hearing was held on 15 June 2026.

The tenants, Mr Wu and Ms Liu, attended the hearing and gave evidence.

The property manager, Ms Ye, attended the hearing and appeared on her own behalf.

Mr Wei attended as the Mandarin interpreter. Background

This application arises from the same factual circumstances that were the subject of an earlier proceeding against the landlord, Investments Today Limited.

In a decision dated 10 October 2025, [2025] NZTT 5269044, I struck out the tenants' application against Investments Today Limited because the company had been placed into liquidation and no consent had been obtained from the liquidator or the High Court to continue the proceeding.

In that decision, I expressly made no finding as to whether Ms Ye, in her capacity as the landlord's agent, was personally liable.

The tenants now seek compensation and exemplary damages from Ms Ye personally. They submit that she should be liable because she signed the one- year fixed-term tenancy agreement on behalf of the landlord on 14 May 2025 and later notified them on 16 May 2025 that the tenancy would not proceed.

The tenants say Ms Ye ought to have prevented the landlord from cancelling the tenancy and that she facilitated conduct which breached s 60AA of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 ("the Act").

Ms Ye says that she acted solely as agent for a disclosed principal, namely Investments Today Limited. She says the tenancy agreement was between the tenants and the landlord company, that she had no personal interest in the property, and that she merely communicated the landlord's instructions. The Law

The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is confined to disputes arising under the Act.

Section 2 of the Act defines "landlord". The definition includes, among other persons, an agent of a landlord.

An agent may therefore, in an appropriate case, be liable for obligations imposed under the Act. However, the fact that a person acts as an agent does not automatically make that person personally liable for every act or omission of the landlord.

The burden rests on the tenants to establish, on the balance of probabilities, a legal basis for personal liability.

It is also a well-established principle of agency law that where an agent acts on behalf of a disclosed principal and within the scope of that authority, the contract is ordinarily between the principal and the other contracting party, rather than the agent personally.

In Abdulla Moussa Ragab Hamouda v Gralin Property Management (Auckland Central) Limited [2024] NZDC 16642, the tenant occupied the premises for a substantial period and repeatedly complained about serious defects, including maintenance failures, unsafe electrical issues, mould, moisture problems, healthy homes breaches, and interference with quiet enjoyment.

The property managers received repeated complaints from the tenant and were responsible for managing the property during the relevant periods.

Judge D Clark held that the Tribunal had erred in removing the property managers from the proceeding because, by virtue of the definition of "landlord" in s 2 of the Act, a property manager may be liable for breaches of obligations imposed by the Act.

Judge D Clark observed that a property manager cannot simply blame the owner where obligations imposed by the Act have not been met. In that case, the property managers had received repeated complaints from the tenant but failed to take appropriate steps to address them.

However, Hamouda can be distinguished from the present case. a. First, Hamouda concerned an existing tenancy. The claims arose from alleged breaches of statutory obligations during the tenancy, including maintenance obligations, healthy homes obligations, and the tenant's right to quiet enjoyment. b. Secondly, the property managers in Hamouda were alleged to have failed to act after receiving repeated complaints from the tenant. Their liability arose from their own conduct in relation to obligations imposed by the Act.

By contrast, the tenancy in the present case never commenced.

The tenants' claim is not based on any alleged failure by Ms Ye to carry out maintenance, comply with the healthy homes standards, remedy defects, or otherwise fulfil obligations imposed upon a landlord during an existing tenancy.

More importantly, there is no evidence before me that Ms Ye knew, before or at the time the tenancy agreement was signed, that Investments Today Limited would be unable to perform the tenancy agreement.

There is also no evidence that Ms Ye knowingly engaged in conduct giving rise to personal liability.

The evidence establishes only that Ms Ye signed the tenancy agreement as agent for the landlord and later communicated the landlord's decision that the tenancy would not proceed.

The tenancy agreement itself identifies Ms Ye as acting "as agent for and on behalf of the landlord".

Unlike Hamouda, there is no evidence that Ms Ye personally breached an obligation imposed by the Act. Nor is there evidence that she acted outside the scope of her authority as agent or assumed personal responsibility for the landlord's obligations. Analysis

I accept that the tenants suffered disappointment and incurred expenses as a result of the tenancy not proceeding.

However, the issue before me is not whether the tenants suffered loss. The issue is whether Ms Ye is personally liable for that loss.

The tenants rely principally on three matters: a. Ms Ye signed the tenancy agreement; b. Ms Ye communicated the landlord's decision that the tenancy would not proceed; and c. Ms Ye acted as the landlord’s agent.

In my view, none of those matters, whether considered individually or collectively, establish personal liability.

The evidence does not establish that Ms Ye knew, before or at the time the tenancy agreement was signed, that the landlord company would be unable to proceed with the tenancy.

Nor does the evidence establish that Ms Ye deliberately misled the tenants or acted outside the scope of her authority.

The tenants also submitted that the property remained advertised for sale and that Ms Ye should have prevented the landlord from cancelling the tenancy.

However, there is no evidence before me that Ms Ye possessed knowledge which would give rise to personal liability. Nor is there evidence that she had the legal authority to override the landlord's instructions.

I am therefore not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the tenants have established that Ms Ye is personally liable. Conclusion

Hamouda does not assist the tenants on the facts of this case.

While a property manager may, in some circumstances, be personally liable under the Act, liability does not arise merely because that person acted as agent for the landlord.

The tenants have failed to establish that Ms Ye personally breached any obligation owed to them under the Act or otherwise assumed personal liability for the landlord's conduct.

Accordingly, the application against Ms Ye is dismissed.

Reasons