Tenant's Bail Conditions Override Landlord's Termination Request
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed a landlord's request to terminate a tenancy because the tenant was complying with a court-ordered bail condition, which took precedence over the tenancy agreement.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to remain in their tenancy despite breaching their tenancy agreement if they are complying with a court-ordered bail condition.
📖 What the law says
This section allows the Tenancy Tribunal to end a tenancy if one party has broken the tenancy agreement or the Act. If the problem can be fixed, the party who complained must have given the other party at least 10 working days' notice to fix it, and the other party failed to do so.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed the landlord's application to terminate the tenancy due to the tenant's bail conditions.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed a landlord's application to terminate a tenancy due to the tenant's compliance with court-ordered bail conditions, prioritising the bail over the tenancy agreement.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5249511 1
[2025] NZTT 5249511
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT REMOTE LOCATION | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. The application is dismissed.
Reasons:
1. The landlord attended the remote hearing.
2. Telephone calls were made to the tenant on the two numbers that had been provided at the allocated hearing time. All calls went to voicemail. The Tribunal may hear matters in the absence of a party where satisfied that notice of the hearing had been given. I am satisfied that notice has been given.
3. The landlord seeks to have the tenancy terminated.
4. The tenancy agreement entered into by the parties contains the following provision;
“14. You must live at the home at all times. The home must only be used for you and your family who were part of your application.”
5. The landlord says that the tenant is no longer living at the home.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5249511 2
6. On 3 March 2025, the landlord sent a letter to the tenant requiring the tenant to comply with the conditions of her tenancy agreement within 14 days.
7. Section 56 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal may make an order terminating a tenancy, if it is satisfied that the other party has committed a breach of any of the provisions of the tenancy agreement and in the case of a breach capable of remedy, the landlord gave to the tenant a notice specifying the nature of the breach complained of, and requiring the tenant to remedy the breach within a reasonable period, being not less than 14 days commencing with the day on which the notice was given.
8. In this matter, the evidence relating to the tenant’s failure to reside at the premises is clear.
9. The tenant has provided a copy of a bail notice from the District Court. That bail notice makes it clear that the tenant must not reside at the tenanted premises. The tenant is left in a “catch 22” position. If the tenant resides at the tenanted address, the tenant will be in breach of their bail conditions. If the tenant does not reside at the address, then the landlord says that they are in breach of their tenancy agreement.
10. In the circumstances, I consider that the District Courts order takes precedence over the landlord’s requirement that the tenant reside at the premises. The application for termination of the tenancy is dismissed.
[NAME]
09 June 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5249511 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 for the payment of less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work worth 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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5249511 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].
Reasons:
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The tenant was in a difficult situation where complying with the tenancy agreement would breach bail conditions.
- The District Court's order explicitly required the tenant not to live at the tenanted premises.
- The Tribunal was satisfied that the landlord had properly notified the tenant of the hearing.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The landlord's argument that the tenant breached the tenancy agreement by not living at the home was not sufficient to terminate the tenancy.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed the landlord's application to terminate the tenancy.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the tenant could be evicted for not living at the premises while under court-ordered bail conditions.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to dismiss the application because the tenant's bail conditions took precedence over the tenancy agreement.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 56 was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the tenant's bail conditions required them not to reside at the premises.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the landlord who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation might be able to avoid eviction if they can show that their bail conditions prevent them from residing at the premises.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The bail notice from the District Court was the key document that mattered.