Sally Lindsay
A woman suffering from chronic and worsening endometriosis has failed in her bid to end a fixed-term tenancy early so she can move in with family members who would care for her.
The woman also wanted to stop paying rent so she could save money to pay for fertility treatment, the Tenancy Tribunal was told.
But adjudicator Nicola Maplesden said there was a high bar for breaking a fixed-term tenancy early which the tenant had failed to meet.
Specifically, the tenant had not provided evidence that her medical condition had deteriorated. Nor was there any evidence about her financial situation, the need for her to start IVF treatment sooner rather than later, as the tenant claimed, or an estimated cost for the treatment.
Further, the applicant tenant was part of a joint tenancy and she had failed to tell her co-tenant that she had applied to the tribunal for a ruling.
Maplesden said the co-tenant and the landlord should have been named as respondents on the application so the tribunal could hear and consider their views.
It was not necessary for the co-tenant to consent to the application, Maplesden said, but the co-tenant did need to be informed, as did the landlord. She agreed with the 2024 decision in NZTT 4925973 – that it was unfair to prevent joint tenants from making an application merely because not all the co-tenants agreed with it.
This meant if one tenant were diagnosed with a terminal illness and would suffer severe hardship if required to continue the tenancy, but the other tenants did not agree, then the unwell tenant could not make an application.
“The purpose of s 66 of the [Residential Tenancies Act] was to give a pathway for the tribunal to consider unforeseen circumstances and balance any hardship which would result if the tenancy term was not reduced,” Maplesden said.
If the tribunal agreed to shorten the tenancy, the landlord could be awarded compensatory damages for any loss that resulted. A landlord was entitled to recover from a tenant any expenses reasonably incurred from an early ending of the tenancy, Maplesden said. The responsibility for the rent lay with the existing tenants until a new tenant was found or the tenancy ended, whichever came first.
Unforeseen change
In this case, even though the applicant tenant had already moved out of the flat, the co-tenant wasn’t told about the tribunal application or the hearing.
Both tenants had jointly taken on a one-year fixed tenancy from May 2025. There were no separate agreements between the tenants and landlord, so if the tenancy ended early, both had to leave the property.
The co-tenant learned of the application and hearing through a telephone call from the adjudicator and said she objected to the tenancy being ended early.
The adjudicator agreed to a second hearing and named the co-tenant as a second respondent, after the landlord, so she could make her case.
The applicant tenant said she had suffered an unforeseen change in her endometriosis, and her health began to deteriorate in August 2025, three months after the tenancy began.
She said as her pain, dizziness and physical immobility could not be physically or psychologically managed on her own, she moved out to live with family.
The order
Maplesden said she accepted the tenant had been affected by an unforeseen change and needed more day-to-day support from family, but she had several other issues to decide.
In dismissing the application she said the applicant tenant had failed to show she would suffer severe hardship if she were required to continue paying rent.
She also took into account the impact on the co-tenant. “If the tenancy was ended or the term reduced, she would be forced to vacate or be liable for the full amount of the weekly rent.”
Compensation would also have been awarded to the landlord for the loss it would suffer. This would be paid from the bond which would affect the co-tenant.
The adjudicator said she had sympathy for both the tenants and the landlord, who was willing to consider any prospective replacement tenant.
“It is a difficult situation,” she said.
Read the tribunal’s order here
0 Comments