What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5151913?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5151913?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5151913?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5151913?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11837951-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5151913?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5151913?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5151913?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5151913?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11837951-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

4A Devon Street, Aro Valley, Wellington 6021 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5151913 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.

This is the second application brought by the landlord for this tenancy. The first application, NZTT 4985201, was heard on 5 November 2024. An Order was then issued for rent arrears and compensation, and the landlord’s other claims were dismissed.

Today the landlord is making another claim for damage to fittings that were the subject of the original hearing, and for loss of rent.

I note that the tenancy ended 10 August 2024, almost three months before the original hearing. This should provide ample time for the parties to finalise their claims before coming to hearing.

A party is required to bring their entire case during the course of a single legal proceeding. This is a long-standing legal principle that is known as the rule of Henderson v Henderson.

An even older principle of law known as “res judicata” prevents two parties re- litigating a matter that has been finally juridically decided on its merits.

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.

Because this application concerns a tenancy and issues that have already been traversed and decided in the Tenancy Tribunal, I am unable to hear it.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.

Today the landlord is making another claim for damage to fittings that were the subject of the original hearing, and for loss of rent.

I note that the tenancy ended 10 August 2024, almost three months before the original hearing. This should provide ample time for the parties to finalise their claims before coming to hearing.

A party is required to bring their entire case during the course of a single legal proceeding. This is a long-standing legal principle that is known as the rule of Henderson v Henderson.

An even older principle of law known as “res judicata” prevents two parties re- litigating a matter that has been finally juridically decided on its merits.

Because this application concerns a tenancy and issues that have already been traversed and decided in the Tenancy Tribunal, I am unable to hear it.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5151913 — Rent arrears at 4A Devon Street, Aro Valley, Wellington 6021

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5151913 — Rent arrears at 4A Devon Street, Aro Valley, Wellington 6021

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions