Contract / Applicant sublet a room to Respondent for a fixed term / Respondent moved out six weeks early / Respondent allowed Applicant to keep his bond for rent / After he left, it took Applicant several months to find another flatmate / Applicant claimed $9,000.00 for rent and utilities / Held: Respondent liable for the rent for whole fixed term / Respondent breached contract by leaving early and stopping paying rent / Applicant could potentially have reduced losses by trying to find a suitable replacement flatmate / Applicant also had an obligation to mitigate losses / Not accepted that a flatmate could not reasonably have been found in less than 22 weeks / Six weeks after Respondent left a reasonable time period to find a new flatmate / Respondent liable for outstanding rent and utilities/expenses totalling $2,217.00 minus Respondent’s bond $460.00/ Respondent ordered to pay $1,757.000 / Claim allowed.
You can search by selecting a jurisdiction, a keyword (for example a name) or browse by year. Identifying details have been removed.
Some decisions in this section have had minor editorial changes applied, that have no effect on the outcome.
32 items matching your search terms
-
IF v EX [2023] NZDT 217 (5 May 2023) [PDF, 176 KB] -
CL v ND [2023] NZDT 12 (8 February 2023) [PDF, 194 KB] Contract / Applicant and Respondent were flatmates / They signed an agreement under which the Applicant was the head tenant / Weekly rent was $200.00 and bond was $4000.00 / Under the agreement, Respondent obliged to give 14 days’ notice if he wished to vacate the property / Applicant claimed the Respondent left without giving the required period of notice, and claimed for unpaid rent / Respondent stated that he informed the Applicant that intended to leave the flat, which he did on that day / Respondent outlined reasons he left the property including lack of cleanliness, noise concerns and flatmates having covid / Applicant said that Respondent had never complained about these issues / Applicant claimed $685.71 for unpaid rent / Held: Respondent lived at the property for six months without complaining about its condition / Flatmates who share a property may have different standards as far as cleanliness and noise are concerned, and some reasonable negotiation would be expected before …
-
UL v PT [2022] NZDT 276 (23 December 2022) [PDF, 180 KB] Property / Applicant rented a room in Respondent’s house / After Applicant left the property the Respondent held onto $400 bond / Applicant sought return of the bond and costs, $600 / Respondent sought $5,420, $4,560 for broken tiles and $120 for cleaning costs / Held: parties did not sign a flatmate agreement before the arrangement started / Applicant had paid all rent up to the point of departure / Applicant had no other recoverable costs / Not possible to prove Respondent’s claim for broken tiles / Cleaning cost of $25 awarded for small amount of dirt under bed / Applicant entitled to receive $375 back, his bond less $25 cleaning cost/ Applicant’s claim granted in part and majority of counterclaim dismissed.
-
OX v ND [2022] NZDT 62 (29 June 2022) [PDF, 111 KB] Contract / Parties were flatmates / Respondent was head tenant / Parties signed renting agreement / Applicant had physical altercation with Respondent’s partner / Respondent was not willing to allow Applicant to return to property / Applicant obtained the intervention of the Police who obliged Respondent to return Applicant’s possessions / Applicant did not remove his possessions from his room until a month later / To pay rent while room was unable to be let to someone else Respondent kept Applicant’s bond of $570.00 / Applicant claimed for return of bond payment subject to renting agreement / Whether either party breached contract / If so, what if any damages or compensation was payable / Held: Applicant not entitled to refund of his bond because it was used to pay for unpaid rent / If the Applicant had taken his possessions away earlier then the bond would almost certainly have been refundable / Applicant’s personal circumstances did not make any difference to his obligation to pay …
-
KT v BM [2021] NZDT 1571 (22 July 2021) [PDF, 182 KB] Contract / Flatmate agreement / Respondent entered applicant’s bedroom multiple times when intoxicated in the night / Applicant sought repayment of bond of $350 from the respondent / Respondent sought rent and miscellaneous costs from applicant / Whether the applicant entitled to cancel the contract / Whether the amount claimed was proven / Held: implied term of contract that the head tenant should not enter the flatmate’s exclusive use area without their consent / privacy and personal security an essential party of the contract / Breach was sufficient to justify the applicant cancelling the contract / Respondent suffered financial loss resulting from a situation of his own making / Respondent ordered to pay $350 to the applicant / Claim granted.
-
BT v SM [2021] NZDT 1562 (22 July 2021) [PDF, 217 KB] Contract / Tort / Flatting agreements / Two separate flatmate agreements between the applicant property owner and the respondents / Dispute over flood damage, furniture damage and rent arears / Applicant claimed $2,055.00 from Respondents for compensation and rent arears / Tenancy Tribunal had earlier determined that the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 did not apply in this claim / Whether any or all of the respondents breached their duty of care not to damage the property / If so, what foreseeable loss flowed from the breach / Question of when the tenancy ended and whether rent had been paid to that date / Held: respondents owed a duty of care not to damage the applicant’s property / evidence established some of the respondents were responsible for damage to the sofa / evidence relating to flood damage unclear / not satisfied the applicant has proven the claim on the balance of probabilities / rent claim not proven on the evidence / two of the respondents responsible for small amount o…
-
AGO v ZVE [2013] NZDT 371 (12 December 2013) [PDF, 68 KB] Contract / verbal contract / implied terms / Applicant was the flatmate of Respondent / Applicant left after one month / Applicant claims Respondent owes a refund of $180.00 being one week’s rent paid in advance / Respondent argued no notice was given / verbal agreement did not include a notice period / issue is whether Respondent is liable to refund any rent to Applicant / Held: terms can be implied into a contract where the contract is silent or not clear / Applicant should have given at least one week’s notice / Respondent is entitled to keep $180.00 being one week’s rent in lieu of notice / Applicant’s claim is dismissed.