What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5400690?

The tribunal order states: The application by David Huang is struck out due to abuse of process.

How much money was awarded in case 5400690?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5400690?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5400690?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12941835-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5400690?

The tribunal order states: The application by David Huang is struck out due to abuse of process.

How much money was awarded in case 5400690?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5400690?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5400690?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12941835-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 5, 15 Hawker Street, Mount Victoria, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5400690 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

The tenancy commenced on 7 November 2022 and ended on 23 February 2025.

On 17 June 2025 the landlord filed an application claiming rent arrears and refund of the bond.

At the hearing on 17 September 2025 the application was adjourned as the landlord had provided two different rent summaries. Prior to the next hearing the adjudicator issued a direction on 10 November 2025 ordering the landlord to provide one completed rent summary prior to the next hearing and this was not provided. The application was dismissed on 18 November 2025 due to insufficient evidence being produced to establish the rent arrears claim.

On the same day the landlord filed an application for rehearing which was dismissed on 26 November 2025. In that decision the adjudicator clearly set out the appeal rights that the landlord had, if they wished to go down that course, but no appeal was lodged.

On 27 November 2025 the landlord filed the current application again seeking rent arrears and refund of the bond. The Law

Section 92A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal may strike out in whole, or in part, a proceeding if it is satisfied it is an abuse of process.

In the recent decision of Cosmo Holdings Ltd v Van Dyk [2025] NZDC 18684, the Court relied on the rule set out in the case of Henderson v Henderson [1843] 3 Hare 100, which explained the relevant principle of law deriving from the concept of res judicata or from the power of the court to prevent abuse of its process: ... where a given matter becomes the subject of litigation in, and of 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 a matter which might have been brought forward as part of the subject in contest, but which was not brough 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 judgement, but to every point which properly belonged to the subject of the litigation, and which the parties, exercising reasonable diligence, might have brought forward at the time.

To put this in layperson’s terms, absent special circumstances, a litigant gets one bite at the cherry in bringing their case, and when they do so, absent special circumstances, must bring all of the available arguments forward.

In this case the landlord had at least two opportunities, after clear direction from the Tribunal, to provide the evidence requested to establish his claim for rent arrears and failed to do so.

In addition, his application for a rehearing was dismissed.

There are no special circumstances which would apply for the Tribunal to consider a further application from the landlord and it constitutes and abuse of process.

As such the application is struck out.

Reasons

The tenancy commenced on 7 November 2022 and ended on 23 February 2025.

On 17 June 2025 the landlord filed an application claiming rent arrears and refund of the bond.

On 27 November 2025 the landlord filed the current application again seeking rent arrears and refund of the bond. The Law

Section 92A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal may strike out in whole, or in part, a proceeding if it is satisfied it is an abuse of process.

In this case the landlord had at least two opportunities, after clear direction from the Tribunal, to provide the evidence requested to establish his claim for rent arrears and failed to do so.

In addition, his application for a rehearing was dismissed.

There are no special circumstances which would apply for the Tribunal to consider a further application from the landlord and it constitutes and abuse of process.

As such the application is struck out.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5400690 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Flat 5, 15 Hawker Street, Mount Victoria,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5400690 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Flat 5, 15 Hawker Street, Mount Victoria,

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