What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5170631?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s claim is dismissed

How much money was awarded in case 5170631?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5170631?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5170631?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11857943-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5170631?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s claim is dismissed

How much money was awarded in case 5170631?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5170631?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5170631?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11857943-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

26 Juniper Road, Sunnynook, Auckland 0620 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5170631 — Smoke alarms

Order

The tenant’s claim is dismissed

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Mr Nikitin seeks orders for exemplary damage Background
The Tribunal previously heard the tenant’s earlier claims in respect to this tenancy and issued a 14-page decision on 20 January 2025. 1
In that decision, the Tribunal noted: 2 Mr Nikitin did not apply for exemplary damages prior to the hearing in accordance with RTA, s 109(1). Exemplary damages are therefore not available.
This claim mainly mirrors the earlier claim and seeks exemplary damages.
Mr Nikitin submits: 1 Nikitin v Russell [2025] NZTT 4870583, 4913633 2 At note 9 of the decision. The Tenancy Tribunal decision did not consider the issue of exemplary damages. According to RTA, s 109(1) exemplary damages are subject to the establishment of an unlawful act. As noted above, the facts of unlawful acts by Rima Russell were established within the framework of the Tenancy Tribunal decision of 20.01.2025. Moreover, Rima Russell intentionally committed the unlawful actions, which follows from the facts established by the Tenancy Tribunal of intentional misleading of the tenant regarding the legality of the tenancy of the premises and its compliance with HHS requirements, as well as from the landlord's statements about the absence of the need to conclude a written lease agreement and issue receipts for payment. In addition, Rima Russell's failure to comply with established standards created both a direct threat to the life and health of me and my family (breach of smoke alarm duties) and made me feel depressed and extremely uncomfortable in a foreign country under psychological pressure and manipulation of laws by landlords. Therefore, as the most vulnerable party, I ask the Tenancy Tribunal to award the following exemplary damages from Rima Russell: - failure by the landlord to provide a written tenancy agreement (RTA ground s 13(4)), NZD 750; - a requirement by the landlord to pay rent more than 2 weeks in advance (RTA ground s 23(4)(a)), NZD 1,500; - failure to provide a receipt for rent (RTA ground s 29(5)), NZD 350; - breach of tenant's privacy (RTA ground s 38(3)), NZD 3,000; - failure by the landlord to comply with fire alarms, healthy housing standards, health, and safety requirements (RTA ground s 45(1A)), NZD 7,200; - actions taken by the landlord to terminate the lease without grounds (RTA grounds, s 60AA), amount 6000 NZD;
I note that the amounts Mr Nikitin seeks for exemplary damages are maxima, and that the Tribunal seldom makes awards at or even close to the maxima. Awards are usually made at only a fraction of the maxima.
The landlord submits the current claims should be dismissed for being res judicata (already decided). Legal principles
The principle of res judicata is a common law rule that bars parties from bringing claims that have already been decided. Underlying the rule is the desirability of finality in proceedings. Otherwise, cases would continue until the party successively bringing proceedings go the result they wanted.
A related principle, the rule against splitting causes of action applies to the extent that Mr Nikitin’s current claim includes some matters which were not the subject of the earlier hearing. That rule requires a claimant to exercise reasonable diligence to bring all its related claims in one hearing.
If a party fails to raise an argument that they could and should have raised in an earlier proceeding, they will generally not be allowed to do so in a subsequent proceeding. Litigation should not be undertaken by instalment. 3 Discussion
Mr Nikitin’s claim is in substance a claim for exemplary damages for the same factual circumstances that the Tribunal dealt with in its earlier decision. The Tribunal turned its mind to exemplary damages but found they were not available because Mr Nikitin had not applied for them prior to the hearing.
If Mr Nikitin considered the decision was wrong he could have appealed the decision or applied for a rehearing. He did not do so.
If it is any consolation to Mr Nikitin, on the facts as I found them at the hearing, I would not have been inclined to ordering any exemplary damages even if I had considered they were an available remedy. Conclusion
This claim is dismissed.

Order

The tenant’s claim is dismissed

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
Mr Nikitin seeks orders for exemplary damage Background
The Tribunal previously heard the tenant’s earlier claims in respect to this tenancy and issued a 14-page decision on 20 January 2025. 1
In that decision, the Tribunal noted: 2 Mr Nikitin did not apply for exemplary damages prior to the hearing in accordance with RTA, s 109(1). Exemplary damages are therefore not available.
This claim mainly mirrors the earlier claim and seeks exemplary damages.
Mr Nikitin submits: 1 Nikitin v Russell [2025] NZTT 4870583, 4913633 2 At note 9 of the decision. The Tenancy Tribunal decision did not consider the issue of exemplary damages. According to RTA, s 109(1) exemplary damages are subject to the establishment of an unlawful act. As noted above, the facts of unlawful acts by Rima Russell were established within the framework of the Tenancy Tribunal decision of 20.01.2025. Moreover, Rima Russell intentionally committed the unlawful actions, which follows from the facts established by the Tenancy Tribunal of intentional misleading of the tenant regarding the legality of the tenancy of the premises and its compliance with HHS requirements, as well as from the landlord's statements about the absence of the need to conclude a written lease agreement and issue receipts for payment. In addition, Rima Russell's failure to comply with established standards created both a direct threat to the life and health of me and my family (breach of smoke alarm duties) and made me feel depressed and extremely uncomfortable in a foreign country under psychological pressure and manipulation of laws by landlords. Therefore, as the most vulnerable party, I ask the Tenancy Tribunal to award the following exemplary damages from Rima Russell: - failure by the landlord to provide a written tenancy agreement (RTA ground s 13(4)), NZD 750; - a requirement by the landlord to pay rent more than 2 weeks in advance (RTA ground s 23(4)(a)), NZD 1,500; - failure to provide a receipt for rent (RTA ground s 29(5)), NZD 350; - breach of tenant's privacy (RTA ground s 38(3)), NZD 3,000; - failure by the landlord to comply with fire alarms, healthy housing standards, health, and safety requirements (RTA ground s 45(1A)), NZD 7,200; - actions taken by the landlord to terminate the lease without grounds (RTA grounds, s 60AA), amount 6000 NZD;
I note that the amounts Mr Nikitin seeks for exemplary damages are maxima, and that the Tribunal seldom makes awards at or even close to the maxima. Awards are usually made at only a fraction of the maxima.
The landlord submits the current claims should be dismissed for being res judicata (already decided). Legal principles
The principle of res judicata is a common law rule that bars parties from bringing claims that have already been decided. Underlying the rule is the desirability of finality in proceedings. Otherwise, cases would continue until the party successively bringing proceedings go the result they wanted.
A related principle, the rule against splitting causes of action applies to the extent that Mr Nikitin’s current claim includes some matters which were not the subject of the earlier hearing. That rule requires a claimant to exercise reasonable diligence to bring all its related claims in one hearing.
If a party fails to raise an argument that they could and should have raised in an earlier proceeding, they will generally not be allowed to do so in a subsequent proceeding. Litigation should not be undertaken by instalment. 3 Discussion
Mr Nikitin’s claim is in substance a claim for exemplary damages for the same factual circumstances that the Tribunal dealt with in its earlier decision. The Tribunal turned its mind to exemplary damages but found they were not available because Mr Nikitin had not applied for them prior to the hearing.
If Mr Nikitin considered the decision was wrong he could have appealed the decision or applied for a rehearing. He did not do so.
If it is any consolation to Mr Nikitin, on the facts as I found them at the hearing, I would not have been inclined to ordering any exemplary damages even if I had considered they were an available remedy. Conclusion
This claim is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5170631 — Smoke alarms at 26 Juniper Road, Sunnynook, Auckland 0620

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5170631 — Smoke alarms at 26 Juniper Road, Sunnynook, Auckland 0620

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