What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5208278?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (5922315-003) to Adrianne

How much money was awarded in case 5208278?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5208278?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5208278?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12393907-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5208278?

The tribunal order states: The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,400.00 (5922315-003) to Adrianne

How much money was awarded in case 5208278?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5208278?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5208278?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12393907-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

13 Korere Terrace, Stonefields, Auckland 1072 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5208278 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

Why is the claim struck out?

The application is struck out pursuant to section 92A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 on the grounds that it discloses no reasonable cause of action (s92A(a) RTA 1986) and that it is likely to cause prejudice and delay (s92A(b) RTA 1986).

The claim relates to events occurring more than six years ago on the 4 th of May 2018 which is when the tenancy ended. This places it outside the limitation period prescribed by section 11 of the Limitation Act 2010.

As such, it discloses no reasonable cause of action: a claim that is time-barred cannot, in law, succeed.

Further, allowing the claim to proceed would be likely to cause prejudice and delay, as the passage of time has inevitably affected the availability of evidence, the recollection of witnesses, and the ability of the respondent to fairly defend the claim.

The legislative purpose of limitation periods is to ensure finality and prevent stale claims, and permitting this matter to proceed despite being statute-barred would be contrary to that purpose and inherently unjust. Potential alternative outcome:

Had I not struck out the claim I would have dismissed it.

The applicant claims that the respondent did not live at the property, but that it was instead occupied by the respondent’s daughter, her boyfriend, and their dogs. They say that the property required extensive repairs at the conclusion of the tenancy.

The respondent disputes this, stating that she lived at the property, her daughter was only 12 years old at the time, and that she did not own a dog or cause any damage.

In Tenancy Tribunal claims, the usual civil law standards apply. The applicant carries the burden of proof and must establish their case on the balance of probabilities—that is, showing that their version of events is more likely than not. This requires sufficient supporting evidence such as independent witnesses, corroborating documents, or photographs. As the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02 noted, it is the applicant’s responsibility to provide the necessary evidence; if they fail to do so, their claim will be dismissed regardless of merit. While the Tribunal does not require absolute certainty, it must be more persuaded than not, after weighing all oral and documentary evidence presented.

The sole evidence provided by the applicant was a set of notes they had compiled themselves and an insurance claim. No further supporting evidence was presented at the hearing. This evidence does not meet the above-stated standard. Accordingly, the claim would have been dismissed had it not been struck out. The Bond:

The bond is held by the bond centre for the duration of the tenancy in trust for the tenant, and as security for the landlord should they wish to make a valid legal claim against it during or after the tenancy. As outlined above, the landlord is now time-barred from making any further claims in relation to this tenancy. Accordingly, I have ordered the refund of the bond to the tenant.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

Why is the claim struck out?

As such, it discloses no reasonable cause of action: a claim that is time-barred cannot, in law, succeed.

Had I not struck out the claim I would have dismissed it.

The respondent disputes this, stating that she lived at the property, her daughter was only 12 years old at the time, and that she did not own a dog or cause any damage.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5208278 — Tenancy dispute at 13 Korere Terrace, Stonefields, Auckland 1072

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5208278 — Tenancy dispute at 13 Korere Terrace, Stonefields, Auckland 1072

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Why is the claim struck out?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Why is the claim struck out?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions