Tenant Held Liable for Damaging Kitchen Benchtop
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal decided that a tenant must pay to fix a chipped kitchen benchtop caused by accidentally dropping a barbecue plate while cleaning. The Tribunal determined that this constituted careless damage under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is liable for careless damage to rental property under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal found the tenant liable for accidental damage to the kitchen benchtop.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal ruled that a tenant was liable for repairing a chipped kitchen benchtop caused by careless handling of a barbecue plate during cleaning. The Tribunal considered the nature of the damage and the standard of care expected of an ordinary tenant.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5436229 1
[2026] NZTT 5436229
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT REMOTE LOCATION | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. The applicants details are suppressed.
2. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $327.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
Description Landlord Tenant Repairs $299.00 Filing fee reimbursement $28.00 Total award $327.00 Bond $327.00 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord $0.00
Reasons:
1. Both parties attended the hearing.
2. The tenancy ended on 20 December 2025. This dispute concerns a chip to the engineered stone benchtop in the kitchen.
3. The respondent says that, while cleaning a small Weber barbecue plate in the kitchen, the plate slipped from his hands and struck the edge of the engineered stone benchtop, causing a chip. The applicant incurred a cost of $299 to repair the damage and seeks reimbursement of that amount from the tenant.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5436229 2
4. In the context of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) and Tenancy Tribunal proceedings, damage falls into three categories: intentional damage, careless damage, and fair wear and tear. Accidental damage may arise as a subcategory within these categories, and its proper classification depends on the overall circumstances of the incident. Whether damage is accidental forms part of a holistic assessment of its nature and cause.
5. Carelessness is not defined in the RTA. Its ordinary meaning includes a lack of care, negligence, or lack of forethought. It may also be described as heedlessness or thoughtlessness and can encompass situations involving an inadvertent lack of care. The applicable standard is that of an ordinary careful person. An ordinary careful person is not expected to take precautions against every foreseeable risk, but only against risks that are reasonably likely to occur: Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850. This approach was applied by the Tenancy Tribunal in Landlord v Tenant [2021] NZTT 4298321.
6. Furthermore, the damage must be of a kind that can fairly and reasonably be regarded as arising naturally from the breach, or as a probable consequence of the breach. Damage that is too remote will not be compensable.
7. I accept the tenant's submission that this type of activity can reasonably be expected to occur in a kitchen and that washing a barbecue plate or skillet is an ordinary use of that space. It is foreseeable that such items will be handled in a kitchen from time to time. However, I find that allowing the plate to slip and strike the edge of the benchtop can properly be characterised as heedless conduct and an inadvertent lack of care even if momentary. This finding should not be taken as suggesting that the act was deliberate or unusual. Accidents of this nature may occur from time to time in the course of ordinary domestic life. Nevertheless, for the purposes of assessing liability under the Act, it is properly classified as careless damage.
8. On that basis, I am satisfied that the landlord has satisfied their burden of proof. The repair cost of $299 was reasonably incurred and is recoverable from the tenant.
9. As the applicant has been successful, I have awarded the application filing fee and granted their request for suppression.
[NAME] 16 June 2026
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5436229 3
Please read carefully: Visit justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals for more information on rehearings and appeals.
Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has happened. For example: • you did not get the letter telling you the date of the hearing, or • the adjudicator improperly admitted or rejected evidence, or • new evidence, relating to the original application, has become available.
You must give reasons and evidence to support your application for a rehearing. A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. You must apply within five working days of the decision using the Application for Rehearing form: justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf
Right of Appeal Both the landlord and the tenant can file an appeal. You should file your appeal at the District Court where the original hearing took place. The cost for an appeal is $260. You must apply within 10 working days after the decision is issued using this Appeal to the District Court form: justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals
Grounds for an appeal You can appeal if you think the decision was wrong, but not because you don’t like the decision. For some cases, there’ll be no right to appeal. For example, you can’t appeal: • against an interim order • a final order, or the failure to make an order, where the amount in dispute on appeal is
less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work, or the failure to make an order, where the value of the
work in dispute on appeal is less than $1000.
Enforcement Where the Tribunal made an order about money or property this is called a civil debt. The Ministry of Justice Collections Team can assist with enforcing civil debt. You can contact the collections team on [PHONE] or go to justice.govt.nz/fines/civil-debt for forms and information.
Notice to a party ordered to pay money or vacate premises, etc. Failure to comply with any order may result in substantial additional costs for enforcement. It may also involve being ordered to appear in the District Court for an examination of your means or seizure of your property.
If you require further help or information regarding this matter, visit tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing- decisions or phone Tenancy Services on [PHONE].
Mēna ka hiahia koe ki ētahi atu awhina, kōrero ranei mo tēnei take, haere ki tenei ipurangi tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, waea atu ki Ratonga Takirua ma runga [PHONE] ranei.
https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals/ https://www.justice.govt.nz/fines/about-civil-debt/ https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions http://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5436229 4
A manaomia nisi faamatalaga poo se fesoasoani, e uiga i lau mataupu, asiasi ifo le matou aupega tafailagi: tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, pe fesootai mai le Tenancy Services i le numera [PHONE].
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The tenant's action of allowing a barbecue plate to slip and strike the benchtop was considered heedless conduct and an inadvertent lack of care.
- The damage to the benchtop was classified as careless damage, making the tenant liable under the Act.
- The landlord successfully proved their case, and the repair cost of $299 was deemed reasonable and recoverable.
- The landlord was awarded the application filing fee because they were successful in their claim.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The tenant must pay to repair a chipped kitchen benchtop.
What was the dispute about?
The landlord claimed the tenant was responsible for the cost to repair a chip in the kitchen benchtop.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided the tenant was liable because the damage was considered careless, not accidental or fair wear and tear.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 54 was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was whether the damage was accidental or careless, which determined the tenant's responsibility.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the landlord.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should be cautious about how they handle items in the kitchen to avoid damaging the property.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify the evidence or documents that mattered.