Tenant's Claim to Declare Notice Retaliatory Dismissed
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed the tenant's claim that a termination notice was retaliatory, ruling that the landlord's actions were fair and genuine, not motivated by retaliation.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant cannot prove a termination notice is retaliatory without showing the landlord was motivated by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or Act.
📖 What the law says
This rule allows a tenant to ask the Tenancy Tribunal to cancel a termination notice if they believe the landlord gave it because the tenant used a right they had under their tenancy agreement or the law, or because the tenant complained about the landlord. The tenant must apply within 14 working days of getting the notice.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal dismissed the claimant's application to declare the termination notice retaliatory.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed the tenant's application to declare a termination notice retaliatory, finding the landlord's actions were fair and genuine, not motivated by retaliation.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5205811 1
[2025] NZTT 5205811
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT REMOTE LOCATION | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Tenant
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Landlord
TENANCY ADDRESS: Room 523, [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE], Park Tower
ORDER
1. The application by [NAME] to declare the 28 days notice retaliatory is dismissed.
Reasons:
2. Both parties attended the hearing, by telephone.
3. The tenant claims the 28 day notice of 13/3/2025 to end the tenancy on 10/4/2025 is retaliatory.
4. The tenancy is a boarding house tenancy which commenced on 29/7/2023 at $295.00 per week rent.
5. The premises have 300 tenants and a comprehensive set of rules.
Was the notice to terminate the tenancy valid?
6. The tenant believed the notice to terminate the tenancy dated 13/3/2025 was retaliatory because she received the notice the day after a verbal altercation between herself and the property manager.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5205811 2
7. Based on what had happened during the altercation the tenant believed it was unfair of the landlord to end her tenancy.
8. On the other hand, the landlord submitted the reason for giving the tenant notice was her breach of the house rules and lack of apology, 24 hours after the incident.
9. Under section 66U(1)(d) a landlord may terminate a boarding house tenancy without reason by giving at least 28 days notice.
10. Section 66U(2) sets out the requirements of the notice.
11. I find the notice of 13/3/2025 is valid and meets all the necessary requirements.
Was the notice retaliatory?
12. From 30 January 2025 for a notice to be declared retaliatory, the tenant must prove:
a. that in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right, power, authority, or remedy under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord relating to the tenancy:
b. that, in giving the notice, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the exercise or performance, or proposed exercise or performance, by the chief executive or any other person of any power or function conferred under this or any other Act in respect of the tenancy or premises See section 54(2)(a)&(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
13. The tenant must make the application within 28 working days after receiving the termination notice and may apply for an order declaring the notice to be of no effect.
14. Under subsection (5) the Tribunal need not declare a notice retaliatory if satisfied that the purported exercise by the tenant of any such right, power, authority or remedy or the making by the tenant of any such complaint was or would be vexatious or frivolous to such an extent that the landlord was justified in giving notice.
15. Giving a termination notice which is declared to be retaliatory is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded, up to a maximum of $6,500.00. See section 54(4) and Schedule 1A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
16. What is at issue here is whether the notice was of any effect because in giving the notice the landlord was motivated either wholly or in part by the exercise by the tenant of any right, power, authority or remedy conferred by the tenancy agreement or Act.
17. There are four issues to consider:
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5205811 3
a. Does the termination notice comply with s 66U RTA?
b. If so, was the application made within 28 working days of the notice being served? If not, are there grounds to extend the notice period under s 96(2) RTA? In Realty House Whakatane Limited v Eschbank [2020] NZDC 16081, the District Court held that the time limit for filing an application is mandatory but may be extended in limited circumstances.
c. Has the tenant proved that, in terminating the tenancy, the landlord was motivated wholly or partly by the tenant exercising a right under the tenancy agreement or any enactment, or by any complaint against the landlord?
d. If so, was the landlord justified in giving the notice because the tenant’s issue or complaint was frivolous or vexatious?
18. As mentioned above the notice does comply with section 66U.
19. The application by the tenant was made on 20/3/2025, seven days after the notice to terminate was issued.
20. The Tribunal has held that the term motivate has the ordinary dictionary meaning “to give impetus to … to impel”. Usually there will be little direct evidence about the landlord’s intent in giving a termination notice. Therefore, the Tribunal must consider what inferences, if any, can be drawn from the timing and sequence of events.
21. Where there is a short period of time between the tenant raising an issue about the tenancy and the landlord serving a notice, this may lead to a strong inference that the landlord was at least partly motivated by the tenant exercising their rights. In this situation, the evidential onus shifts to the landlord to show that there was a legitimate reason for the notice.
22. His Honour Judge Ongley found in [NAME] v [NAME] DC Porirua M.A. 244/88 3 November 1988 that a notice was not retaliatory if it was given for genuine and fair reasons.
23. The position of the tenant is understandable, especially considering the very short space of time between the altercation and the landlord issuing the notice.
24. However, and unfortunate as it may be for the tenant the evidence does not prove that the landlord was motivated by the tenant exercising any right, power, authority, or remedy under the tenancy agreement or any Act, or by any complaint against the landlord relating to the tenancy:
25. The landlord was clear that he issued the notice because the tenant breached the house rules relating to swearing and had failed to apologise. He believed the conduct was unacceptable in terms of the large number and different ethnicities of tenants in the premises.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5205811 4
26. I am persuaded by the evidence of the landlord that the notice terminating the tenancy was given for fair and genuine reasons and was not retaliatory.
27. The application by the tenant fails and the landlord has not committed an unlawful act.
28. For the avoidance of doubt the end date of the tenancy in terms of the 28 day notice is 10 April 2025.
[NAME]
03 April 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5205811 5
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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5205811 6
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 landlord clearly stated the reason for issuing the termination notice was due to the tenant breaching the house rules and failing to apologize.
- The timing between the altercation and the notice was considered, but the tribunal found no proof that the landlord was motivated by the tenant exercising her rights.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The tenant believed the notice was retaliatory because it came the day after a verbal altercation with the property manager.
- The tenant claimed the landlord was motivated by her exercising her rights under the tenancy agreement.
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 tenant's application to declare the termination notice retaliatory.
What was the dispute about?
The tenant claimed the landlord's termination notice was retaliatory due to a verbal altercation with the property manager.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided the notice was valid and not retaliatory, finding the landlord's actions were fair and genuine, not motivated by retaliation.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, sections 54 and 66U, were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The tenant argued the notice was retaliatory because it followed a verbal altercation, while the landlord claimed it was due to a breach of house rules.
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 ensure they have solid evidence to prove the landlord's motivation was retaliatory.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The verbal altercation and the landlord's explanation of the tenant's breach of house rules were key pieces of evidence.