Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5416373 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Unit 111, 14 Edgerley Avenue, Epsom, Auckland
Published 5 April 2026 · Application 5416373
Landlord favoured
- Filing Fee
- Filing Fee Reimbursement
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
J Setefano
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $4,208.07
- Bond payment as ordered
- −$3,120.00
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $1,088.07
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Final water charges | $100.75 | Final water charges | |
| Lease break | $821.20 | Lease break | |
| Loss of rent | $3,258.12 | Loss of rent | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $1,088.07 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $1,088.07 |
Claims and awards for application 5416373 — net $1,088.07 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Final water charges
- Amount
- $100.75
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Final water charges
Lease break
- Amount
- $821.20
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Lease break
Loss of rent
- Amount
- $3,258.12
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Loss of rent
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Landlord $1,088.07
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $1,088.07
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- Quentin David Marais must pay Uno Property Management Limited As Agent For Jing-Yiing Gau $1,088.07 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
- The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $3120.00 (BN-00123816) to Uno Property Management Limited As Agent For Jing-Yiing Gau immediately.
Reasons
- A hearing was held by video conference on 1 April 2026. The landlord attended and gave evidence. The tenant did not attend. I am satisfied that the notice of hearing was properly served in accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”). I therefore consider it reasonable to proceed in the tenant’s absence pursuant to section 85 of the Act. Background
- The tenancy commenced on 25 July 2025 and was for a fixed term ending 23 July 2026. The weekly rent was $780.00 and a bond of $3,120.00 was paid. The tenancy ended early on 7 December 2025 when the tenant vacated prior to the expiry of the fixed term.
- The landlord’s evidence is that the tenant elected to break the fixed term tenancy and was advised of their ongoing liability, including rent until a replacement tenant was secured and any reasonable costs associated with reletting the premises. The landlord subsequently re-let the property at a lower weekly rent.
- The landlord seeks the following: final water charges of $100.75, lease break costs of $821.10, and compensation of $3,258.12 representing the difference between the original rent and the new rent for the remainder of the fixed term. Issues for Determination
- The issues for determination are whether the tenant is liable for: • The final water charges; • The landlord’s reletting costs; and • Compensation for loss of rent arising from the early termination of the fixed term tenancy. Relevant Law
- A fixed term tenancy is binding on both parties for the duration of the term unless lawfully terminated in accordance with the Act. Where a tenant vacates before the end of a fixed term without lawful justification, this constitutes a breach of the tenancy agreement.
- Under section 40(2)(a) of the Act, tenants must pay rent as it falls due. Where a tenant vacates early, they remain liable for rent until the tenancy is lawfully terminated or the premises are relet.
- While section 49 does not expressly impose a duty on the landlord to mitigate loss in these circumstances, compensation is limited to actual loss. The Tribunal must therefore consider whether the landlord has taken reasonable steps to reduce any loss arising from the tenant’s breach.
- The Tribunal has consistently held that reasonable reletting costs, such as advertising and letting fees, may be recoverable where they arise directly from a tenant’s breach.
- In relation to outgoings such as water charges, section 39 of the Act permits recovery where the charges are exclusively attributable to the tenant’s use and are properly invoiced. Assessment Water Charges
- The landlord has provided invoices supporting the claim for final water charges of $100.75. There is no evidence to suggest that these charges are not properly attributable to the tenant’s use of the premises. I am satisfied this claim is established and reasonable. The tenant is therefore liable for this amount. Lease Break Costs
- The landlord claims $821.10 for lease break or reletting costs and has provided an invoice in support. These costs arise directly from the tenant’s decision to end the tenancy early. I am satisfied that such costs are a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the tenant’s breach and are recoverable, provided they are reasonable in amount. The invoice appears consistent with standard letting costs. Accordingly, this claim is allowed in full. Loss of Rent / Rent Differential
- The landlord seeks $3,258.12 representing the difference between the original rent and the new rent over 228 days at $100 per week.
- The Tribunal accepts that where a property is relet at a lower rent following a tenant’s breach, the landlord may recover the shortfall as compensation, provided the landlord has taken reasonable steps to mitigate loss.
- On the evidence before me, the landlord has relet the premises and quantified the loss as the difference in weekly rent over the balance of the fixed term. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord failed to take reasonable steps to relet the property or that the reduced rent was unreasonable in the market circumstances.
- The calculation provided appears consistent with the stated weekly shortfall and duration. While the Tribunal will not permit recovery beyond actual loss, the landlord’s claim reflects a genuine rental shortfall rather than a penalty.
- I am therefore satisfied that the claimed amount of $3,258.12 represents a reasonably foreseeable and quantifiable loss arising directly from the tenant’s breach. This claim is allowed. Filing fee
- As the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must order the tenant to reimburse the filing fee.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s11, s12, s39, s40(2), s49, s85
Key findings
- Dispute theme: filing fee
Property management
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5416373?
The tribunal order states: Quentin David Marais must pay Uno Property Management Limited As Agent
How much money was awarded in case 5416373?
Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Final Water Charges: $100.75 awarded to landlord; Lease Break: $821.20 awarded to landlord; Loss Of Rent: $3,258.12 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5416373?
The dispute type was not classified.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5416373?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13398035-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.