What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4652869?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4652869?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4652869?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4652869?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9516681-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4652869?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4652869?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4652869?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4652869?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9516681-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

65 Easther Crescent, Kew, Dunedin 9012 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4652869 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord sought $400.00 insurance excess for replacement of a bedroom carpet.

Previously by order dated 21/6/2023 the Tribunal awarded $1,200.00 being three insurance excesses for replacement of the drapes and carpets in three rooms due to damage by a cat.

In addition, the Tribunal dismissed the claim for carpet cleaning.

The landlord suggested that due to the carpet cleaning claim having been dismissed, the owner then claimed against insurance for replacement of the carpet.

The tenant maintained his stance that he had not had a cat at the premises.

The concept of finality of litigation is a fundamental expectation in our legal system. If there is no finality, then there could be a never-ending procession of proceedings on effectively the same point, only dressed differently.

As noted by the Court of Appeal in OY v Complaints Hearing Committee [2013] NZCA 103: [26] An issue estoppel arises where an issue between the parties has already been determined by a competent tribunal — in which case the parties are barred from raising the issue for determination again. This Court described the nature of issue estoppel in Joseph Lynch Land Co Ltd v Lynch as follows: The concept of res judicata is often applied to both cause of action estoppel and issue estoppel. Traditionally its use was confined to the former. Cause of action estoppel is different from issue estoppel which can arise where a plea of res judicata in the strict sense is not open because the causes of action are not the same ... Issue estoppel is concerned with the prior resolution of issues rather than causes of action ... issue estoppel precludes a party from contending the contrary of any precise point which, having once been distinctly put in issue, has been solemnly and with certainty determined against him.

I have no jurisdiction to reconsider the issue of damage to the bedroom carpet for which the landlord now seeks to claim the insurance excess.

This is because the claim for damage to carpets has been adjudicated.

The landlord’s claim is estopped due to it being res judicata. The same subject matter cannot be relitigated after it has been heard and determined by a Court or Tribunal of competent jurisdiction.