What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4622649?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

How much money was awarded in case 4622649?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4622649?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4622649?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9336945-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4622649?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

How much money was awarded in case 4622649?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4622649?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4622649?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9336945-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 7, 333 State Highway 10, Cable Bay 0420 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4622649 — Rent arrears

Order

No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
All applications are dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider two applications, one from the tenant, and one from the landlord. A hearing was convened in the North Shore on 24 August 2023 to consider those applications. The tenant, Ms Tanner, attended in person. The landlords attended by phone. Over the course of the hearing it was apparent that the primary issue for the tenant related to a dispute around GST. For the reasons I will set out below, the Tribunal cannot consider any further claim in relation to the matter. Following discussion both parties agreed that the remaining claims should be dismissed by consent.
For the purpose of this decision, there are two previous decisions of the Tribunal which are of relevance.
The first Tribunal decision of relevance, is the decision from Adjudicator ter Haar dated 9 June 2022 under application 4339641. This was an application from the landlord to terminate the tenancy based on rent arrears. The Tribunal did order termination of the tenancy, and that the arrears be paid by the tenant, but importantly the Adjudicator also addressed the tenant’s submission, around GST. The Adjudicator records in her order: While I am satisfied that the rent record provided by the applicant is an accurate statement of the rent charged and received, I am persuaded by Ms Tanner’s contention that the total amount of rent payable ought to be reduced by $1017.39 which is the amount of GST she paid to 15 September 2021. This is because during that period she was already in a residential tenancy and GST is not payable on residential tenancies. The rent component of the 7 June 2021 invoice is therefore $7,800.00 less the GST of $1017.39.
Ms Tanner applied for a re-hearing of the matter considered by Adjudicator ter Haar, on the basis that the Adjudicators conclusion around the GST was wrong, and that she was not in 21 days of arrears. The application for rehearing was dismissed.
The second Tribunal decision of relevance is application 4394082, which was an application from Ms Tanner against the landlord. The adjudicator in that case was Mr Blake, and his order is dated 22 November 2022. Mr Blakes order records that he considered arguments that there had been an unlawful rent increase, but around half of the adjudicators analysis, was the applicability of GST as far as the rent was concerned.
More recently both parties have applied for further orders, and those further applications are the matter currently before me on 24 August 2023.
The orders sought by the tenant, include orders relating to: a. The dispute around GST. b. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction to consider the disputes, because the premises may not be residential tenancy premises, or an ability to consider GST disputes. c. The previous orders from the Tribunal being wrong. d. Damage to her plants from spraying. e. The landlord travelling on, or working on the grounds outside her premises. f. Breaches of obligations around Tenancy agreements g. Stress h. Breaches of obligations in relation to the Healthy Homes Standards
The landlord sort orders in relation to: a. The GST and any amount that should be paid by the tenant; and b. An order forbidding the tenant from filing further applications in this case.
We commenced with the tenants claims. It was clear that the primary dispute for the tenant centred around the GST matters. At the hearing I explained that I could not consider those matters again, nor any application which sought to challenge a previous decision of the Tenancy Tribunal. After I have clarified that situation, the tenant indicated that she did not particularly wish to pursue the remaining claims. A discussion then ensued, and both the tenant and landlord agreed that the remaining claims should be dismissed by consent.
However it was very evident that the primary concern the tenant is around the GST, and she advised that she would likely take that dispute elsewhere, but understood that the matter could not be reconsidered in the Tenancy Tribunal.
At the hearing I confirmed that I would set out in this order the reason why the Tribunal could not consider the GST dispute again, and to be fair that situation would be the case for the new application from both the tenant and landlord, who both seek further orders around the GST.
There is a very well settled principle of finality in litigation that exists in courts and tribunals. What this principle means, is that when a party brings an application in a judicial forum, and a decision is issued, that is the end of the matter, at least as far as that level of decision-making is considered. There is of course an ability to appeal to a higher body, but generally speaking a party cannot go back to the same level, to argue the matter again. If the principle did not exist, then conceivably there could be a never-ending procession of applications filed at the same level, in order to argue effectively the same thing, just in a different way.
Put technically, the situation is referred to as being an estoppel, and there are various forms of estoppel that apply, but the point is that once a matter has been determined, that is it - other than appeal.
There is a long-standing rule in law, known as the principal of Henderson v Henderson, which in effect means a party cannot bring another claim, when it could have been brought earlier. That applies here to the GST dispute. This was a decision from 1843 but remains relevant in law today. In that case Wigram VC said: 1 Where a given matter becomes the subject of litigation in, and adjudication by, a court of competent jurisdiction, the Court required the parties to that litigation to bring forward their whole case, and will not (except under special circumstances) permit the same parties to open the same subject of litigation in respect of matters which might have been brought forward as part of the subject in contest, but which was not brought forward, only because they have, from negligence, inadvertence, or even accident, omitted part of the case. The plea of res judicata applies, except in special cases, not only to the points upon which the Court was actually required by the parties to form an opinion and pronounce a judgment, but to every point which properly belonged to the subject of litigation, in which the parties, exercising reasonable diligence, might have brought forward at the time. 1 Henderson v Henderson [1843] 3 HARE 100
A loosing party cannot simply file another application in the same body, to address any deficiencies in their earlier claim. That would offend the principal of finality of litigation. If filing further applications was permitted, then conceivably there may be no end to claims being filed for the same dispute.
As far as the GST issues are concerned, I consider that they have already been considered by the Tribunal in both the landlord and tenant applications notes above – or they could have been argued there.
If the tenant disagreed with the decision of the adjudicators, she could have applied for an appeal to the District Court, but I recognise that she is now out of time to do so. But the fact of being out of time to appeal does not mean I can consider the dispute again, even if argued from a different perspective.
In any event, while I cannot consider the GST dispute again, the parties have agreed that the remainder of the claims should be dismissed, and that is ordered.

Order

No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
All applications are dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider two applications, one from the tenant, and one from the landlord. A hearing was convened in the North Shore on 24 August 2023 to consider those applications. The tenant, Ms Tanner, attended in person. The landlords attended by phone. Over the course of the hearing it was apparent that the primary issue for the tenant related to a dispute around GST. For the reasons I will set out below, the Tribunal cannot consider any further claim in relation to the matter. Following discussion both parties agreed that the remaining claims should be dismissed by consent.
For the purpose of this decision, there are two previous decisions of the Tribunal which are of relevance.
The first Tribunal decision of relevance, is the decision from Adjudicator ter Haar dated 9 June 2022 under application 4339641. This was an application from the landlord to terminate the tenancy based on rent arrears. The Tribunal did order termination of the tenancy, and that the arrears be paid by the tenant, but importantly the Adjudicator also addressed the tenant’s submission, around GST. The Adjudicator records in her order: While I am satisfied that the rent record provided by the applicant is an accurate statement of the rent charged and received, I am persuaded by Ms Tanner’s contention that the total amount of rent payable ought to be reduced by $1017.39 which is the amount of GST she paid to 15 September 2021. This is because during that period she was already in a residential tenancy and GST is not payable on residential tenancies. The rent component of the 7 June 2021 invoice is therefore $7,800.00 less the GST of $1017.39.
Ms Tanner applied for a re-hearing of the matter considered by Adjudicator ter Haar, on the basis that the Adjudicators conclusion around the GST was wrong, and that she was not in 21 days of arrears. The application for rehearing was dismissed.
The second Tribunal decision of relevance is application 4394082, which was an application from Ms Tanner against the landlord. The adjudicator in that case was Mr Blake, and his order is dated 22 November 2022. Mr Blakes order records that he considered arguments that there had been an unlawful rent increase, but around half of the adjudicators analysis, was the applicability of GST as far as the rent was concerned.
More recently both parties have applied for further orders, and those further applications are the matter currently before me on 24 August 2023.
The orders sought by the tenant, include orders relating to: a. The dispute around GST. b. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction to consider the disputes, because the premises may not be residential tenancy premises, or an ability to consider GST disputes. c. The previous orders from the Tribunal being wrong. d. Damage to her plants from spraying. e. The landlord travelling on, or working on the grounds outside her premises. f. Breaches of obligations around Tenancy agreements g. Stress h. Breaches of obligations in relation to the Healthy Homes Standards
The landlord sort orders in relation to: a. The GST and any amount that should be paid by the tenant; and b. An order forbidding the tenant from filing further applications in this case.
We commenced with the tenants claims. It was clear that the primary dispute for the tenant centred around the GST matters. At the hearing I explained that I could not consider those matters again, nor any application which sought to challenge a previous decision of the Tenancy Tribunal. After I have clarified that situation, the tenant indicated that she did not particularly wish to pursue the remaining claims. A discussion then ensued, and both the tenant and landlord agreed that the remaining claims should be dismissed by consent.
However it was very evident that the primary concern the tenant is around the GST, and she advised that she would likely take that dispute elsewhere, but understood that the matter could not be reconsidered in the Tenancy Tribunal.
At the hearing I confirmed that I would set out in this order the reason why the Tribunal could not consider the GST dispute again, and to be fair that situation would be the case for the new application from both the tenant and landlord, who both seek further orders around the GST.
There is a very well settled principle of finality in litigation that exists in courts and tribunals. What this principle means, is that when a party brings an application in a judicial forum, and a decision is issued, that is the end of the matter, at least as far as that level of decision-making is considered. There is of course an ability to appeal to a higher body, but generally speaking a party cannot go back to the same level, to argue the matter again. If the principle did not exist, then conceivably there could be a never-ending procession of applications filed at the same level, in order to argue effectively the same thing, just in a different way.
Put technically, the situation is referred to as being an estoppel, and there are various forms of estoppel that apply, but the point is that once a matter has been determined, that is it - other than appeal.
There is a long-standing rule in law, known as the principal of Henderson v Henderson, which in effect means a party cannot bring another claim, when it could have been brought earlier. That applies here to the GST dispute. This was a decision from 1843 but remains relevant in law today. In that case Wigram VC said: 1 Where a given matter becomes the subject of litigation in, and adjudication by, a court of competent jurisdiction, the Court required the parties to that litigation to bring forward their whole case, and will not (except under special circumstances) permit the same parties to open the same subject of litigation in respect of matters which might have been brought forward as part of the subject in contest, but which was not brought forward, only because they have, from negligence, inadvertence, or even accident, omitted part of the case. The plea of res judicata applies, except in special cases, not only to the points upon which the Court was actually required by the parties to form an opinion and pronounce a judgment, but to every point which properly belonged to the subject of litigation, in which the parties, exercising reasonable diligence, might have brought forward at the time. 1 Henderson v Henderson [1843] 3 HARE 100
A loosing party cannot simply file another application in the same body, to address any deficiencies in their earlier claim. That would offend the principal of finality of litigation. If filing further applications was permitted, then conceivably there may be no end to claims being filed for the same dispute.
As far as the GST issues are concerned, I consider that they have already been considered by the Tribunal in both the landlord and tenant applications notes above – or they could have been argued there.
If the tenant disagreed with the decision of the adjudicators, she could have applied for an appeal to the District Court, but I recognise that she is now out of time to do so. But the fact of being out of time to appeal does not mean I can consider the dispute again, even if argued from a different perspective.
In any event, while I cannot consider the GST dispute again, the parties have agreed that the remainder of the claims should be dismissed, and that is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4622649 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 7, 333 State Highway 10, Cable Bay 0420

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4622649 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 7, 333 State Highway 10, Cable Bay 0420

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions