What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4984808?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4984808?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4984808?

The primary dispute was Harassment. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4984808?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11299641-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4984808?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4984808?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4984808?

The primary dispute was Harassment. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4984808?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11299641-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

11B Matai Street, Otangarei, Whangarei 0112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4984808 — Harassment

Order

The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Prior to the hearing, the tenant made a request to attend the video hearing via telephone. The tenant’s request was granted and both parties attended via telephone.
Mr Moore represented himself. Ms Maturan-Abuid represented Kāinga Ora– Homes And Communities. The claim
Shane Thomas Moore claims the landlord harassed him during the tenancy which commenced 9 November 2016 and ended on 16 December 2016. He states his tenancy manager, Ms Di Daniella, harassed him during the tenancy, and seeks exemplary damages for that harassment, and compensation for costs he says he incurred as a result of the harassment.
The landlord says Mr Moore’s claims should be dismissed on the basis Mr Moore is seeking to re-litigate issues that have already been heard and determined in the Tenancy Tribunal ([2021] NZTT 4287949) and District Court ([2021] NZDC 12820).
To the extent any new claims are raised by Mr Moore, the landlord says those claims are time-barred. 1 Background
On 9 February 2017, Mr Moore first filed a claim seeking exemplary damages for harassment by tenancy manager Di Daniela during the tenancy at 11B Matai Street, Otangarei. 2 On 28 April 2017, the application was withdrawn at the request of Mr Moore.
On 7 January 2021, Mr Moore filed a second claim seeking exemplary damages for harassment by tenancy manager Di Daniela during the tenancy at 11B Matai Street, Otangarei. 3 A hearing was held on 19 February 2021. Mr Moore’s claim for exemplary damages was dismissed in the decision dated 23 February 2021.
Mr Moore appealed the Tribunal’s decision to the District Court. The appeal was heard on 27 April 2021, and in a decision dated July 2021, Mr Moore’s appeal was dismissed.
On 28 August 2024, Mr Moore filed a new application in the Tribunal seeking exemplary damages for harassment by tenancy manager Di Daniela during the tenancy at 11B Matai Street, Otangarei, and compensation for costs he alleges he incurred as a result of the harassment. The law
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The rule of Henderson v Henderson is a long-standing legal principle that requires a party to bring their entire case during the course of a single legal proceeding. 4 Another principle of law known as “res judicata” prevents any party re-litigating a matter that has previously been decided. 1 With reference to the 12-month time limit for exemplary damages, pursuant to s109(2)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), and the 6-year time limit for all other monetary claims, pursuant to s11(1) of the Limitation Act 2010 and s77(1) of the RTA. 2 [2017] NZTT 4067153. 3 [2021] NZTT 4287949. 4 Henderson v Henderson [1843] 3 Hare 100.
These two principles were discussed in the High Court decision of Muir, Bradbury, Peebles and Maud v Commissioner of Inland Revenue CIV-2011- 404-1132 [2015] NZHC 792 which included the following paragraph: Where a given matter becomes the subject of litigation in, and adjudication by, a court of competent jurisdiction, the court requires 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 their case. The plea of res judicata applies, except in special cases, not only to 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 and which parties, exercising reasonable diligence, might have brought forward at the time. See Henderson v Henderson [1843] 3 Hare 100.
Section 109 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states: (1) Any of the following persons (A) may apply to the Tribunal for an order requiring any other person (B) to pay to A an amount in the nature of exemplary damages on the ground that B has committed an unlawful act: (a) a landlord: (b)a tenant: (c)the chief executive acting as the person responsible for the general administration of this Act or in the place of a landlord or a tenant under section 124A. (2)A landlord or a tenant may not apply under subsection (1) later than— (a)12 months after the termination of the tenancy in the case of— (i)an unlawful act to which section 19(2) refers; or (ii)a failure to keep records in respect of bonds that is an unlawful act to which section 30(2) refers; or (b)12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act in the case of any other unlawful act
Section 77 of the RTA states: (1)Without limiting the generality of section 77 or the nature or extent of orders that the Tribunal may make in the exercise of its jurisdiction, the Tribunal may, in respect of any claim within its jurisdiction (but subject to section 78A, if that section applies), make 1 or more of the following orders: [...] (d)an order that a party pay money to any other party:
Section 11 of the Limitation Act 2010 states: (1) It is a defence to a money claim if the defendant proves that the date on which the claim is filed is at least 6 years after the date of the act or omission on which the claim is based (the claim’s primary period). Discussion
Mr Moore’s claim is the same claim previously dismissed by the Tenancy Tribunal in 2021, a decision which was upheld on appeal to the District Court.
Applying the principle of res judicata, the present claim is dismissed. Mr Moore’s claim that Ms Daniela harassed him during the tenancy was found to be “baseless” in the Tribunal decision issued in 2021. 5 Mr Moore raises the same claim in this proceeding. His additional claims of compensation raised in this proceeding, for rental of a van on 16 December 2016, dental treatment carried out on 29 November 2016 and a claim for return of all rent paid during the tenancy, all stem from, and rely upon, the claim of harassment being made out.
At the hearing today, Mr Moore did not produce any new evidence. He did not seek to call any witnesses and confirmed he was content for me to review the written material as filed in support of his claims.
Kainga Ora also did not call any witnesses at the hearing today, and Ms Maturan-Abuid also confirmed she was content for me to review the written submissions filed. 6
Given I have dismissed this claim as it is an attempt to re-litigate matters already decided, I do not need to address Kainga Ora’s claims that the matters are (also) time-barred.

Order

The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Prior to the hearing, the tenant made a request to attend the video hearing via telephone. The tenant’s request was granted and both parties attended via telephone.
Mr Moore represented himself. Ms Maturan-Abuid represented Kāinga Ora– Homes And Communities. The claim
Shane Thomas Moore claims the landlord harassed him during the tenancy which commenced 9 November 2016 and ended on 16 December 2016. He states his tenancy manager, Ms Di Daniella, harassed him during the tenancy, and seeks exemplary damages for that harassment, and compensation for costs he says he incurred as a result of the harassment.
The landlord says Mr Moore’s claims should be dismissed on the basis Mr Moore is seeking to re-litigate issues that have already been heard and determined in the Tenancy Tribunal ([2021] NZTT 4287949) and District Court ([2021] NZDC 12820).
To the extent any new claims are raised by Mr Moore, the landlord says those claims are time-barred. 1 Background
On 9 February 2017, Mr Moore first filed a claim seeking exemplary damages for harassment by tenancy manager Di Daniela during the tenancy at 11B Matai Street, Otangarei. 2 On 28 April 2017, the application was withdrawn at the request of Mr Moore.
On 7 January 2021, Mr Moore filed a second claim seeking exemplary damages for harassment by tenancy manager Di Daniela during the tenancy at 11B Matai Street, Otangarei. 3 A hearing was held on 19 February 2021. Mr Moore’s claim for exemplary damages was dismissed in the decision dated 23 February 2021.
Mr Moore appealed the Tribunal’s decision to the District Court. The appeal was heard on 27 April 2021, and in a decision dated July 2021, Mr Moore’s appeal was dismissed.
On 28 August 2024, Mr Moore filed a new application in the Tribunal seeking exemplary damages for harassment by tenancy manager Di Daniela during the tenancy at 11B Matai Street, Otangarei, and compensation for costs he alleges he incurred as a result of the harassment. The law
A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
The rule of Henderson v Henderson is a long-standing legal principle that requires a party to bring their entire case during the course of a single legal proceeding. 4 Another principle of law known as “res judicata” prevents any party re-litigating a matter that has previously been decided. 1 With reference to the 12-month time limit for exemplary damages, pursuant to s109(2)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), and the 6-year time limit for all other monetary claims, pursuant to s11(1) of the Limitation Act 2010 and s77(1) of the RTA. 2 [2017] NZTT 4067153. 3 [2021] NZTT 4287949. 4 Henderson v Henderson [1843] 3 Hare 100.
These two principles were discussed in the High Court decision of Muir, Bradbury, Peebles and Maud v Commissioner of Inland Revenue CIV-2011- 404-1132 [2015] NZHC 792 which included the following paragraph: Where a given matter becomes the subject of litigation in, and adjudication by, a court of competent jurisdiction, the court requires 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 their case. The plea of res judicata applies, except in special cases, not only to 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 and which parties, exercising reasonable diligence, might have brought forward at the time. See Henderson v Henderson [1843] 3 Hare 100.
Section 109 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states: (1) Any of the following persons (A) may apply to the Tribunal for an order requiring any other person (B) to pay to A an amount in the nature of exemplary damages on the ground that B has committed an unlawful act: (a) a landlord: (b)a tenant: (c)the chief executive acting as the person responsible for the general administration of this Act or in the place of a landlord or a tenant under section 124A. (2)A landlord or a tenant may not apply under subsection (1) later than— (a)12 months after the termination of the tenancy in the case of— (i)an unlawful act to which section 19(2) refers; or (ii)a failure to keep records in respect of bonds that is an unlawful act to which section 30(2) refers; or (b)12 months after the date of commission of the unlawful act in the case of any other unlawful act
Section 77 of the RTA states: (1)Without limiting the generality of section 77 or the nature or extent of orders that the Tribunal may make in the exercise of its jurisdiction, the Tribunal may, in respect of any claim within its jurisdiction (but subject to section 78A, if that section applies), make 1 or more of the following orders: [...] (d)an order that a party pay money to any other party:
Section 11 of the Limitation Act 2010 states: (1) It is a defence to a money claim if the defendant proves that the date on which the claim is filed is at least 6 years after the date of the act or omission on which the claim is based (the claim’s primary period). Discussion
Mr Moore’s claim is the same claim previously dismissed by the Tenancy Tribunal in 2021, a decision which was upheld on appeal to the District Court.
Applying the principle of res judicata, the present claim is dismissed. Mr Moore’s claim that Ms Daniela harassed him during the tenancy was found to be “baseless” in the Tribunal decision issued in 2021. 5 Mr Moore raises the same claim in this proceeding. His additional claims of compensation raised in this proceeding, for rental of a van on 16 December 2016, dental treatment carried out on 29 November 2016 and a claim for return of all rent paid during the tenancy, all stem from, and rely upon, the claim of harassment being made out.
At the hearing today, Mr Moore did not produce any new evidence. He did not seek to call any witnesses and confirmed he was content for me to review the written material as filed in support of his claims.
Kainga Ora also did not call any witnesses at the hearing today, and Ms Maturan-Abuid also confirmed she was content for me to review the written submissions filed. 6
Given I have dismissed this claim as it is an attempt to re-litigate matters already decided, I do not need to address Kainga Ora’s claims that the matters are (also) time-barred.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4984808 — Harassment at 11B Matai Street, Otangarei, Whangarei 0112

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4984808 — Harassment at 11B Matai Street, Otangarei, Whangarei 0112

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions