Tenant's Bond Refund Dispute with Co-Tenant Not Within Tenancy Tribunal Jurisdiction
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed an application by a tenant seeking recovery of part of a bond after it was refunded to another tenant. The Tribunal ruled that disputes between tenants over the division of a bond are not within its jurisdiction, as such matters do not fall under Section 4 and 77(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
⚖️ Legal holding
A dispute between tenants over the division of a bond refund is not within the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal.
📖 What the law says
This section states that the Act generally applies to all tenancies for residential purposes, unless the Act itself says otherwise. In this case, it helps define when the Act's rules, and therefore the Tribunal's powers, can be used.
This section gives the Tenancy Tribunal the power to resolve disputes that arise between landlords and tenants regarding a tenancy covered by the Act. It specifies that the Tribunal's jurisdiction is for disputes between these two parties, not between tenants themselves.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed an application by a tenant seeking recovery of part of a bond after it was refunded to another tenant.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed an application by a tenant seeking recovery of part of a bond after it was refunded to another tenant. The Tribunal ruled that disputes between tenants over the division of a bond are not within its jurisdiction, as such matters do not fall under Section 4 and 77(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Dismissed
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5437368 1
[2026] NZTT 5437368
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT REMOTE LOCATION | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Tenant
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Landlord
TENANCY ADDRESS: Unit/[ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. The application is dismissed.
Reasons:
1. Both landlords attended the hearing. One tenant, Ms [APPELLANT] appeared but Mr [APPELLANT] did not attend.
2. The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
3. The applicant Ms [APPELLANT] filed an application for the recovery of part of the bond after it was refunded in full to the other tenant, Mr [APPELLANT].
4. It was confirmed by the landlord that both parties were tenants but during the tenancy each had called to say they were thinking of leaving. The landlord asked for this in writing but never received anything. The tenancy was never varied to remove a tenant.
5. At the end of the tenancy the landlord said Mr [APPELLANT] was persistently requesting the refund of the bond. He signed the bond release form and contacted Ms [APPELLANT]
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5437368 2
who said that she also sought some of the bond refund. The landlord tried to stop the bond release but was unable to.
6. Ms [APPELLANT] confirmed that she has no claim against the landlord. Her dispute is with Mr [APPELLANT] for her share of the bond refunded to him.
7. As discussed in the hearing the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, RTA, applies to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically provided, and the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine any dispute between a landlord and a tenant in respect of any tenancy to which the Act applies. See Section 4 and 77(1) of the RTA.
8. This dispute is not between a landlord and a tenant but is between tenants and therefore the Tenancy Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to hear the claim.
9. The applicant could consider if the Disputes Tribunal is the appropriate place to have this issue determined.
10. The application is dismissed.
11. The applicant was not successful, and name suppression is not granted.
[NAME]
29 May 2026
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5437368 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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5437368 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:
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- Tenancy Tribunal Tenant Must Pay Rent Arrears or Face Eviction
- Tenancy Tribunal Tenancy Tribunal Orders Tenant to Pay Rent Arrears and Damages
- Tenancy Tribunal Tenant's Non-Appearance Leads to Landlord's Possession Order
- Tenancy Tribunal Claimant wins rent dispute: Tenant ordered to pay $7,856.15
- Tenancy Tribunal Tenancy Tribunal Rules: Tenant Must Clean Premises Before Leaving
- Tenancy Tribunal Tenancy Terminated Due to Rent Arrears
- Tenancy Tribunal Tenant's Failure to Return Constitutes Abandonment
- Tenancy Tribunal Tenant's Tenancy Terminated for Abandonment
- Tenancy Tribunal Tenants Ordered to Pay Rent Arrears and Cleaning Costs
A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The dispute over the division of a bond refund is not within the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tribunal dismissed an application by a tenant seeking recovery of part of a bond after it was refunded to another tenant.
Who was involved?
A tenant and another co-tenant were involved in the dispute over the division of a bond refund.
How did the court decide, and why?
The Tribunal ruled that disputes between tenants are not within its jurisdiction under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Sections 4 and 77(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 were cited as relevant provisions.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The Tribunal ruled that disputes between tenants are not within its jurisdiction under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the tenant who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should consider filing their dispute with the Disputes Tribunal instead of the Tenancy Tribunal.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The application and testimony provided by both tenants were considered, but no specific documents were highlighted as crucial.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
A rehearing can be applied for if there is substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice. An appeal to the District Court may also be possible within 10 working days.
Is it worth getting a lawyer for a case like this?
It is advisable to seek legal advice from a qualified lawyer for specific guidance on your situation.
