After MND diagnosis, tenant had to move. His landlord still wanted rent

A tenant received the life-changing diagnosis of motor neurone disease and lost his job on medical grounds, prompting him and his wife to seek an early end to their tenancy. 

As his condition deteriorated, they planned to move from Auckland to the South Island for family support. 

But days before they were due to leave, the landlord said the couple needed to pay a further month’s rent because the fixed-term tenancy had not expired. 

The dispute ultimately ended up before the Tenancy Tribunal. 

In a decision released this week, tribunal adjudicator Jacci Setefano said she had no difficulty concluding the tenants would suffer severe hardship if the fixed-term tenancy was not reduced. 

“The tenant’s diagnosis is life-changing,” she wrote. 

The landlord claimed the tenants remained liable for rent after vacating the property, while the tenants argued the tenancy ended on December 24, 2025, their agreed move-out date. 

The tenants filed an application seeking a refund of their $2200 bond, and the landlord filed a cross-application seeking to recover rent claimed was owing after the tenants vacated the premises. 

Both parties have name suppression. 

According to the decision, the tenancy began on June 8, 2024, and was initially due to end in June 2025. 

The parties subsequently agreed to extend the tenancy until January 25, 2026, with rent set at $560 a week. 

But before the expiry of the fixed term, one of the tenants was diagnosed with motor neurone disease, which damages nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord that control voluntary muscle movement. 

NRL player Jai Arrow was diagnosed with motor neurone disease earlier this year. AAP Image / Dan Himbrechts 

The disease has been under the spotlight recently after the diagnosis of NRL player Jai Arrow this year. 

The tenant provided medical information to the landlord which established that the condition significantly affected his physical functioning and had resulted in the termination of his employment on medical grounds. 

The couple decided to relocate to be closer to family. 

On July 30, 2025, they advised the property manager of the diagnosis and requested discussions about an early exit from the tenancy. 

As the tenant’s condition deteriorated, they wrote again on November 27, 2025, explaining that relocation had become necessary because of the progression of the illness, the need for family support and the tenant’s wife’s employment. 

They advised they intended to vacate on December 24, 2025, and invited the landlord to immediately begin advertising the property to minimise any loss. The property manager agreed. 

However, on December 18, 2025, they were advised the landlord had not agreed to an early termination and claimed rent would continue until a replacement tenant was secured or the fixed term expired. 

“Requiring the tenants to continue paying rent on an Auckland property after vacating, while simultaneously relocating because of serious illness and loss of income, would impose substantial financial and personal hardship,” Setefano found. 

Meanwhile, she found the landlord had not demonstrated hardship of a comparable nature. 

“Importantly, the landlord had been aware of the tenant’s diagnosis since July 2025 and had several months’ notice that the tenants were seeking an early release because of that diagnosis. 

“The tenants also expressly encouraged the landlord to begin advertising immediately in order to minimise any potential loss.” 

The fixed-term tenancy was reduced to end on December 24, 2025, meaning the landlord had no entitlement to recover rent beyond that date. 

The tenants were also awarded a full refund of their $2200 bond, and the landlord’s cross-application was dismissed. 

Brianna McIlraith is a Queenstown-based reporter for Open Justice covering courts in the lower South Island. She has been a journalist since 2018 and has had a strong interest in business and financial journalism.