Tenant wins unlawful eviction case after owner moved in, then claimed wife ‘hated’ $1.8m Fendalton home

Tuesday, 23 June 2026

A Christchurch property owner who ended a tenancy saying his family needed to move in, claimed they left after only two nights because his wife “hated the place”.

The Tenancy Tribunal has ruled that landlord Prestige Property Management in fact ended the tenancy so the owners could start renovation work on the “substantial” Fendalton home earlier, and was therefore unlawful.

Geraldine Lonergan rented the property - an architecturally-designed 1000sqm property near Glandovey Rd estimated to be worth about $1.7 million - from May 2025 under a periodic tenancy managed by Prestige. .

In July, Prestige told Lonergan that the property owner, Simon Hunter, had experienced a “change of circumstances” and his family needed to move into the property as soon as possible. She was given 42 days’ notice to leave.

Lonergan accepted the notice and found another rental property.

However, tribunal adjudicator R Armstrong found there was no evidence of any change in circumstances requiring the owners to move in quickly.

Hunter, who bought the house the previous September, told the tribunal he planned to move his family into the property before renovating it.

But he said his wife disliked the house because she was used to a more modern home. After spending two nights there, the family moved back to their own home and renovation work began days later.

The tenants said that the owner obtained consent to renovate the premises in April 2025 and that work started a few days after they moved out. Prestige said the owner had a construction business and so was able get things moving very quickly.

The tribunal did not accept the explanation.

Armstrong said it was unlikely the owner’s wife would commit to buying a family home without viewing it, particularly when it was close to the family’s existing home.

Photographs would have provided a clear impression of the property’s style, he said.

The decision noted the speed with which renovation work began after the tenants left.

“In my view, it is likely that when the owner instructed Prestige to serve the termination notice, he intended the work on the premises to begin shortly after the tenants moved out,” Armstrong said.

The adjudicator found the owner did not genuinely intend to occupy the property as the family’s principal place of residence for the period required under the Residential Tenancies Act.

“It follows that the owner served a termination notice knowing that he was not entitled to do so.”

Armstrong said the notice gave the tenants 42 days to leave rather than the 90 days they were entitled to.

The tribunal ordered Prestige Property Management to pay Lonergan $3000 in exemplary damages and reimburse her filing fee.

The home appears to have since been demolished.