Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 5418369 — Tenancy dispute at 179 Albany Heights Road, Dairy Flat, RD 2, Dairy Flat 0792

Published 7 April 2026 · Application 5418369

Dismissed

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Outcome

Dismissed

From published order

Location

Dairy Flat

Tribunal region

Adjudicator

M Kan

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

This decision concerns the tenant’s claim that the landlord is responsible for the death of her dog, Petunia, who died on 6 September 2025 from complications arising from an Escherichia coli (“E. coli”) infection.
The tenant alleges that the infection was caused by contaminated water at the premises. The landlord disputes that claim and says the source of the infection cannot be determined.
The hearing took place on 2 April 2026. Mr Van Lawrence appeared for the landlord as the new property manager. Ms Highet appeared in person and was supported by her daughter, Ms T Highet.
Both parties filed written material and provided oral submissions. Background
It is not in dispute that Petunia died from an E. coli infection. Veterinary records confirm that Petunia presented with lethargy, inappetence, increased urination and drinking, and was diagnosed with a urinary tract infection caused by E. coli. The infection progressed to bacterial infection of the kidneys and resulted in her death on 6 September 2025.
The timeline provided by the tenant shows that concerns about Petunia’s health arose in early August 2025, that she was taken to the vet on 2 September 2025, and that her condition deteriorated rapidly over the following days until her death.
It is also accepted that during August 2025 there were issues with the water system at the premises, and that the tenant raised concerns about water quality and the lack of potable water during that period.
The issue for determination is whether the tenant has established, on the balance of probabilities, that the infection which caused Petunia’s death was caused by contamination at the premises, and in particular by the water supply. The Tenant’s Case
The tenant’s case is that Petunia contracted E. coli from the premises, and in particular from contaminated water.
The tenant says that Petunia lived at the property her entire life, was not walked due to her temperament, and did not have contact with other environments where she might have been exposed to infection. The tenant states that she is “100%” certain that the infection came from the house for that reason.
The tenant also relies on evidence that Petunia had no prior history of illness. A veterinary nurse confirmed that, prior to September 2025, Petunia had only attended the clinic for routine vaccinations and checks, and had not required treatment for illness.
The tenant further relies on the timing of events, submitting that Petunia became unwell shortly after the period in which the water supply was contaminated. The tenant says that the landlord’s failure to properly address the water issue prolonged the period of contamination and increased the likelihood of exposure.
The tenant acknowledges that no testing was carried out to identify the specific strain of E. coli or to match any strain to the premises, but submits that, based on the available evidence, it is more likely than not that the infection originated from the property. The Landlord’s Case
The landlord accepts that Petunia died from an E. coli infection and acknowledges the tenant’s loss.
However, the landlord says that there is no evidence establishing that the infection was caused by the premises or by the water supply.
The landlord relies on the veterinary evidence, which confirms the presence of E. coli but states that the source of the bacteria cannot be determined. The landlord submits that this is fatal to the tenant’s claim.
The landlord also relies on scientific and veterinary material indicating that E. coli is commonly found in many environments and that infections of this kind frequently arise from bacteria already present within the animal. Questions Raised at the Hearing
During the hearing, I raised a number of questions with the tenant directed at identifying whether the water supply was the only plausible source of infection.
I asked about the presence of other animals at the property. The tenant confirmed that, in addition to Petunia, there were other animals, including 2 cats and chickens.
I also asked about environmental conditions at the property, including whether there were bird droppings or other animal waste present in outdoor areas. The tenant accepted that birds and other wildlife were present and that such environmental factors existed.
I further asked whether Petunia had exposure to soil, grassed areas, or other outdoor surfaces around the property where bacteria may be present.
These questions were directed at testing whether the water supply could be identified as the probable source of infection, or whether there were other potential sources that could not be excluded. Weight of Scientific and Journal Evidence
Both parties referred to scientific literature and journal articles concerning E. coli infections and their causes.
I place little or no weight on that material. The content is technical in nature and no expert witness was called to explain or support it. Where parties intend to rely on technical or scientific material, it is generally necessary for the author or a suitably qualified expert to be available so that the Tribunal can properly assess the reliability and relevance of that material.
In the absence of such evidence, I do not rely on those materials in determining this issue. Key Expert Evidence
The most significant evidence in this case is the veterinary opinion of Ms Hoseason from Dairy Flat Veterinary Clinic.
That evidence confirms that Petunia suffered from a significant E. coli infection. However, it also states: “E. coli is a common bacterial organism found in many environments... however, it cannot determine the specific environmental source or origin of the bacterial strain.”
This evidence is significant. It establishes both the presence of infection and the limits of what can be concluded from the testing.
This is expert evidence from a qualified veterinarian. It directly addresses the issue of causation and the limits of what can be concluded from the available testing. I place significant weight on this evidence. Burden and Standard of Proof
The tenant bears the burden of proving her claim.
The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. The tenant must establish that it is more likely than not that the landlord’s breach caused the loss claimed.
It is not sufficient to show that the water supply may have been the source of the infection. The evidence must establish that it probably was. Analysis
I accept that the tenant has established that Petunia died from an E. coli infection and that there were issues with the water supply at the premises during the relevant period.
I also accept that the tenant genuinely believes that the infection came from the premises.
However, the evidence does not establish that the premises, or the water supply, was the source of the infection.
The veterinary evidence is clear that the source of the E. coli cannot be determined. That evidence has not been displaced. There is no expert evidence before the Tribunal identifying the source of the infection or linking it to the premises.
There was no strain testing or other scientific analysis carried out that could compare the bacteria found in Petunia with any bacteria present in the water or environment at the property. The absence of such evidence is significant.
The evidence establishes that there were multiple potential sources of exposure present at the property. These include other animals, animal waste, bird droppings, soil, and general environmental exposure.
Even taking into account the tenant’s evidence about Petunia’s limited movement outside the property, those potential sources cannot be excluded.
In those circumstances, the water supply is only one of several possible sources of infection. The evidence does not establish that it is the probable source.
In my view, where there are multiple plausible causes, and the evidence does not establish which is more likely, the burden of proof is not discharged. Conclusion
I accept that the tenant has suffered a genuine and distressing loss.
However, the tenant has not established, on the balance of probabilities, that the E. coli infection which caused Petunia’s death was caused by the premises or by any breach by the landlord.
The expert veterinary evidence confirms that the source of the infection cannot be determined, and there is no further evidence that resolves that uncertainty.
Accordingly, the tenant has not discharged the burden of proof, and the application is dismissed.

Topics & place

Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).

Dairy Flat

Residential Tenancies Act sections

s33

Property management

REFORMA P.M. LIMITED as agent for Li Bo Chen (respondent)

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5418369?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5418369?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5418369?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5418369?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13396593-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Reasons

This decision concerns the tenant’s claim that the landlord is responsible for the death of her dog, Petunia, who died on 6 September 2025 from complications arising from an Escherichia coli (“E. coli”) infection.

The tenant alleges that the infection was caused by contaminated water at the premises. The landlord disputes that claim and says the source of the infection cannot be determined.

The hearing took place on 2 April 2026. Mr Van Lawrence appeared for the landlord as the new property manager. Ms Highet appeared in person and was supported by her daughter, Ms T Highet.

Both parties filed written material and provided oral submissions. Background

It is not in dispute that Petunia died from an E. coli infection. Veterinary records confirm that Petunia presented with lethargy, inappetence, increased urination and drinking, and was diagnosed with a urinary tract infection caused by E. coli. The infection progressed to bacterial infection of the kidneys and resulted in her death on 6 September 2025.

The timeline provided by the tenant shows that concerns about Petunia’s health arose in early August 2025, that she was taken to the vet on 2 September 2025, and that her condition deteriorated rapidly over the following days until her death.

It is also accepted that during August 2025 there were issues with the water system at the premises, and that the tenant raised concerns about water quality and the lack of potable water during that period.

The issue for determination is whether the tenant has established, on the balance of probabilities, that the infection which caused Petunia’s death was caused by contamination at the premises, and in particular by the water supply. The Tenant’s Case

The tenant’s case is that Petunia contracted E. coli from the premises, and in particular from contaminated water.

The tenant says that Petunia lived at the property her entire life, was not walked due to her temperament, and did not have contact with other environments where she might have been exposed to infection. The tenant states that she is “100%” certain that the infection came from the house for that reason.

The tenant also relies on evidence that Petunia had no prior history of illness. A veterinary nurse confirmed that, prior to September 2025, Petunia had only attended the clinic for routine vaccinations and checks, and had not required treatment for illness.

The tenant further relies on the timing of events, submitting that Petunia became unwell shortly after the period in which the water supply was contaminated. The tenant says that the landlord’s failure to properly address the water issue prolonged the period of contamination and increased the likelihood of exposure.

The tenant acknowledges that no testing was carried out to identify the specific strain of E. coli or to match any strain to the premises, but submits that, based on the available evidence, it is more likely than not that the infection originated from the property. The Landlord’s Case

The landlord accepts that Petunia died from an E. coli infection and acknowledges the tenant’s loss.

However, the landlord says that there is no evidence establishing that the infection was caused by the premises or by the water supply.

The landlord relies on the veterinary evidence, which confirms the presence of E. coli but states that the source of the bacteria cannot be determined. The landlord submits that this is fatal to the tenant’s claim.

The landlord also relies on scientific and veterinary material indicating that E. coli is commonly found in many environments and that infections of this kind frequently arise from bacteria already present within the animal. Questions Raised at the Hearing

During the hearing, I raised a number of questions with the tenant directed at identifying whether the water supply was the only plausible source of infection.

I asked about the presence of other animals at the property. The tenant confirmed that, in addition to Petunia, there were other animals, including 2 cats and chickens.

I also asked about environmental conditions at the property, including whether there were bird droppings or other animal waste present in outdoor areas. The tenant accepted that birds and other wildlife were present and that such environmental factors existed.

I further asked whether Petunia had exposure to soil, grassed areas, or other outdoor surfaces around the property where bacteria may be present.

These questions were directed at testing whether the water supply could be identified as the probable source of infection, or whether there were other potential sources that could not be excluded. Weight of Scientific and Journal Evidence

Both parties referred to scientific literature and journal articles concerning E. coli infections and their causes.

I place little or no weight on that material. The content is technical in nature and no expert witness was called to explain or support it. Where parties intend to rely on technical or scientific material, it is generally necessary for the author or a suitably qualified expert to be available so that the Tribunal can properly assess the reliability and relevance of that material.

In the absence of such evidence, I do not rely on those materials in determining this issue. Key Expert Evidence

The most significant evidence in this case is the veterinary opinion of Ms Hoseason from Dairy Flat Veterinary Clinic.

That evidence confirms that Petunia suffered from a significant E. coli infection. However, it also states: “E. coli is a common bacterial organism found in many environments... however, it cannot determine the specific environmental source or origin of the bacterial strain.”

This evidence is significant. It establishes both the presence of infection and the limits of what can be concluded from the testing.

This is expert evidence from a qualified veterinarian. It directly addresses the issue of causation and the limits of what can be concluded from the available testing. I place significant weight on this evidence. Burden and Standard of Proof

The tenant bears the burden of proving her claim.

The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. The tenant must establish that it is more likely than not that the landlord’s breach caused the loss claimed.

It is not sufficient to show that the water supply may have been the source of the infection. The evidence must establish that it probably was. Analysis

I accept that the tenant has established that Petunia died from an E. coli infection and that there were issues with the water supply at the premises during the relevant period.

I also accept that the tenant genuinely believes that the infection came from the premises.

However, the evidence does not establish that the premises, or the water supply, was the source of the infection.

The veterinary evidence is clear that the source of the E. coli cannot be determined. That evidence has not been displaced. There is no expert evidence before the Tribunal identifying the source of the infection or linking it to the premises.

There was no strain testing or other scientific analysis carried out that could compare the bacteria found in Petunia with any bacteria present in the water or environment at the property. The absence of such evidence is significant.

The evidence establishes that there were multiple potential sources of exposure present at the property. These include other animals, animal waste, bird droppings, soil, and general environmental exposure.

Even taking into account the tenant’s evidence about Petunia’s limited movement outside the property, those potential sources cannot be excluded.

In those circumstances, the water supply is only one of several possible sources of infection. The evidence does not establish that it is the probable source.

In my view, where there are multiple plausible causes, and the evidence does not establish which is more likely, the burden of proof is not discharged. Conclusion

I accept that the tenant has suffered a genuine and distressing loss.

However, the tenant has not established, on the balance of probabilities, that the E. coli infection which caused Petunia’s death was caused by the premises or by any breach by the landlord.

The expert veterinary evidence confirms that the source of the infection cannot be determined, and there is no further evidence that resolves that uncertainty.

Accordingly, the tenant has not discharged the burden of proof, and the application is dismissed.