Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5463369 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 4, 386 Richmond Road, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1021
Published 9 April 2026 · Application 5463369
Tenant favoured
- Exemplary damages
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Tenant favoured
From published order
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
M Kan
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compensation | $750.00 | Compensation | |
| Exemplary damages | $750.00 | Exemplary damages | |
| 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 5463369 — net $1,528.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Compensation
- Amount
- $750.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Compensation
Exemplary damages
- Amount
- $750.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Exemplary damages
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
- Country Living Realty Limited As Agent For Zurs Trust Graham McIntyre must pay Rebekah Fleur Peterson $1,528.00 immediately. DescriptionTenant Compensation $750.00 Exemplary damages $750.00 Filing fee reimbursement $28.00 Total award $1,528.00 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $1,528.00
Reasons
- The hearing was conducted via video conference.
- Ms Peterson appeared on her own behalf. Mr McIntyre from West Auckland Property Management appeared for the landlord and was accompanied by Ms Brydone and Ms Hallett from the same office.
- Ms Peterson applies for orders arising from a notice of termination issued under section 51(2)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”), dated 30 January 2026, requiring her to vacate the premises on 13 March 2026.
- At the outset of the hearing, I confirmed with the parties that the central issue was whether the landlord was entitled to issue a 42-day notice under section 51(2)(b) on 30 January 2026 when the tenancy remained a fixed-term tenancy due to expire on 12 February 2026. Background
- The tenancy was renewed for a fixed term from 14 February 2025 to 12 February 2026.
- On 15 December 2025, the then property manager, Ms Barlow, advised Ms Peterson that the property would be placed on the market for sale. In that correspondence, the tenant was informed that if the tenancy was fixed-term, the sale would be subject to the tenancy until the end of that fixed term.
- On 30 January 2026, the landlord issued a notice requiring Ms Peterson to vacate the premises by 13 March 2026 on the basis that the property had been sold and vacant possession was required under section 51(2)(b) of the Act.
- It is not in dispute that, at the time the notice was issued, the tenancy remained within its fixed term.
- Ms Peterson vacated the premises on 13 March 2026. Submissions from both parties
- Ms Peterson relied on her written submissions and confirmed her position that the notice was invalid because it was issued during a fixed-term tenancy and the 42-day notice provisions apply only to periodic tenancies.
- Ms Peterson sought compensation, exemplary damages, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
- Mr McIntyre submitted that the property manager was acting on instructions from the owner following the sale of the property and the requirement for vacant possession. He accepted that the notice was issued prior to the expiry of the fixed term, describing it as being “12 days earlier than it probably should have been.”
- Mr McIntyre also referred to earlier communications with the tenant regarding the intention to sell the property but did not dispute that the notice was issued during the fixed-term tenancy.
Was the notice valid?
- The notice issued on 30 January 2026 relied on section 51(2)(b) of the Act, which applies to periodic tenancies.
- At the time the notice was issued, the tenancy was a fixed-term tenancy that did not expire until 12 February 2026. A fixed-term tenancy may only be terminated in the circumstances set out in section 50 of the Act. Those circumstances did not apply.
- The landlord therefore had no grounds to issue a notice to terminate the tenancy on 30 January 2026 under section 51(2)(b) of the Act.
- I find that the notice of termination dated 30 January 2026 was invalid and of no effect. Retaliatory notice
- In her submissions, Ms Peterson relied on section 54 of the Act. Section 54 applies where a notice is given in response to a tenant exercising a right under the Act.
- The evidence before me establishes that the notice was issued following the sale of the property and the requirement for vacant possession.
- There is no evidence that the notice was given in response to Ms Peterson exercising any right under the Act.
- Accordingly, I find that section 54 does not apply to the facts of this case. The law applies to the facts of this case
- The appropriate section that applies to the facts before me is that the landlord has breached their obligations under section 60AA of the Act.
- Under section 60AA, a landlord must not give a notice to terminate the tenancy or apply to the Tribunal for such an order, knowing they are not entitled to do so.
- Breaching any of these obligations without a reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $6500.00. See section 60AA and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- The landlord issued a notice purporting to terminate a fixed-term tenancy when no statutory right to do so existed. The evidence establishes that Ms Barlow, the then property manager, was aware of the tenant’s rights. In particular, the email dated 15 December 2025 expressly acknowledged that any sale would be subject to the fixed-term tenancy until its expiry.
- Despite that, a notice was issued prior to the expiry of the fixed term.
- Mr McIntyre submitted that the property manager was acting on the owner’s instructions. I accept that submission.
- However, the effect of those instructions was that the landlord proceeded to terminate the tenancy in circumstances where there were no lawful grounds to do so.
- I find the landlord committed an unlawful act. Compensation
- Ms Peterson submitted that she was placed under stress and pressure to vacate the property within a short timeframe.
- The notice required her to vacate, notwithstanding that she remained entitled to occupy the premises under a fixed-term tenancy. Although Mr McIntyre argued that the termination was issued “12 days earlier than it probably should have been,” suggesting there were only 12 days of inconvenience, I disagree.
- The issue is not limited to 12 days of inconvenience. It also concerns Ms Peterson’s legal rights under the fixed-term tenancy. Ms Peterson was entitled to rely on the tenancy continuing until 12 February 2026. In my view, she was entitled to the full benefit of that tenancy.
- I am satisfied that compensation is warranted for the stress and pressure caused.
- I award compensation in the amount of $750. Exemplary damages
- Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
- In this case, the property manager was aware of the tenant’s legal position, as evidenced by the 15 December 2025 email.
- The decision to issue the notice in any event can only be explained as a decision to proceed despite that knowledge.
- I accept that the property manager was acting on the landlord’s instructions. In those circumstances, I infer that the landlord elected to proceed in disregard of the legal position.
- I am satisfied that the breach of section 60AA was intentional.
- An award of exemplary damages is warranted.
- I award exemplary damages in the amount of $750. Filing fee
- Because Rebekah Fleur Peterson has wholly succeeded with the claim I must 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
s10, s109(3), s35, s50, s51(2), s54, s60AA
Key findings
- Dispute theme: exemplary damages
Property management
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5463369?
The tribunal order states: Country Living Realty Limited As Agent For Zurs Trust Graham McIntyre must
How much money was awarded in case 5463369?
Compensation: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5463369?
The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5463369?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13420552-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.