What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4705629 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4705629?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4705629?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4705629?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9642832-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4705629 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4705629?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4705629?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4705629?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9642832-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4705629 — Rent arrears

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by a tenant against the landlord. The application is a challenge of a Tribunal decision issued in 2016.
In 2016 the landlord filed an application with the Tribunal against the tenant. That proceeded to a hearing from which an order was issued on 19 July 2016, which had the effect of ordering the tenant to pay rent arrears, compensation for damage and exemplary damages. The tenant did not appear at the hearing. On the final page of the decision was information around the parties rights to rehearing and appeal.
It seems that the order was published by the media, and the tenant reports that the news article remains searchable online, and when the tenants name is searched, the story comes up. The tenant advised that this story has had a significant impact on the tenants life, including an in ability to obtain further tenancies.
In October 2023 the tenant filed this current application with the Tribunal, in effect seeking to challenge the basis for the Tribunal’s order in 2016.
I convened a hearing today in Hamilton where I have heard from the parties.
The tenant accepts that she owed the rent arrears ordered by the adjudicator in 2016, but she disputes the other charges raised.
I asked the tenant why she did not appeal the decision if she considered it was wrong? The tenant advised she had family disputes at the time, but otherwise is not sure why she did not appeal the decision but she does not feel that it is right, nor fair.
In response the landlord advised that the tenant is out of time for both a rehearing and appeal. Even if that were not the case the Limitation Act would apply, but in this case it is not a new claim as such but is an application challenging a Tribunal order.
As I explained to the tenant, if she disagreed with the Tribunals order in 2016, it carried a right of appeal to the District Court, in short the District Court could have decided if the Tribunal’s decision was right on the evidence. But what the Tenant cannot do is return to the Tribunal under a new application like she has done, in order to challenge the Tribunal’s original order.
There is a very well-established principle of finality of litigation. What that principal means, is that when a decision-maker issues a decision, such as the Tribunal did in 2016, then that is the end of the dispute, the decision becomes binding on the parties and also the decision-maker. There is normally an ability to appeal decisions within our justice system, and in the case of the Tenancy Tribunal any appeal is made to the District Court. If an appeal was lodged, and the District Court issued a decision that one of the parties disagreed with, then there is a right of appeal to the High Court, and so on.
If there was no finality, then conceptually either party could keep simply going back to the original decision-maker, by filing a new application, or challenging the decision based on some alternative argument or ground, and the dispute may never be finished.
However there are normally timeframes that apply to appeals. In the case of appeals from Tenancy Tribunal decisions, the parties have 10 working days to file an appeal, and the High Court has confirmed that there is no ability to extend that period it out further. Again having the limitation around lodging any appeal is a further means to reach a point of finality for disputes.
Ultimately there is no ability for the Tribunal to consider a challenge of the 2016 decision as the Tenant has attempted to do here.
The tenant’s application is therefore dismissed.
However, the landlord requested that the parties names are suppressed from this order. In my assessment that is a reasonable approach, I can see no public interest in this this order being published with the parties names notified, the outcome is largely a technical and jurisdictional one. Accordingly the landlords application for duel name suppression is granted.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by a tenant against the landlord. The application is a challenge of a Tribunal decision issued in 2016.
In 2016 the landlord filed an application with the Tribunal against the tenant. That proceeded to a hearing from which an order was issued on 19 July 2016, which had the effect of ordering the tenant to pay rent arrears, compensation for damage and exemplary damages. The tenant did not appear at the hearing. On the final page of the decision was information around the parties rights to rehearing and appeal.
It seems that the order was published by the media, and the tenant reports that the news article remains searchable online, and when the tenants name is searched, the story comes up. The tenant advised that this story has had a significant impact on the tenants life, including an in ability to obtain further tenancies.
In October 2023 the tenant filed this current application with the Tribunal, in effect seeking to challenge the basis for the Tribunal’s order in 2016.
I convened a hearing today in Hamilton where I have heard from the parties.
The tenant accepts that she owed the rent arrears ordered by the adjudicator in 2016, but she disputes the other charges raised.
I asked the tenant why she did not appeal the decision if she considered it was wrong? The tenant advised she had family disputes at the time, but otherwise is not sure why she did not appeal the decision but she does not feel that it is right, nor fair.
In response the landlord advised that the tenant is out of time for both a rehearing and appeal. Even if that were not the case the Limitation Act would apply, but in this case it is not a new claim as such but is an application challenging a Tribunal order.
As I explained to the tenant, if she disagreed with the Tribunals order in 2016, it carried a right of appeal to the District Court, in short the District Court could have decided if the Tribunal’s decision was right on the evidence. But what the Tenant cannot do is return to the Tribunal under a new application like she has done, in order to challenge the Tribunal’s original order.
There is a very well-established principle of finality of litigation. What that principal means, is that when a decision-maker issues a decision, such as the Tribunal did in 2016, then that is the end of the dispute, the decision becomes binding on the parties and also the decision-maker. There is normally an ability to appeal decisions within our justice system, and in the case of the Tenancy Tribunal any appeal is made to the District Court. If an appeal was lodged, and the District Court issued a decision that one of the parties disagreed with, then there is a right of appeal to the High Court, and so on.
If there was no finality, then conceptually either party could keep simply going back to the original decision-maker, by filing a new application, or challenging the decision based on some alternative argument or ground, and the dispute may never be finished.
However there are normally timeframes that apply to appeals. In the case of appeals from Tenancy Tribunal decisions, the parties have 10 working days to file an appeal, and the High Court has confirmed that there is no ability to extend that period it out further. Again having the limitation around lodging any appeal is a further means to reach a point of finality for disputes.
Ultimately there is no ability for the Tribunal to consider a challenge of the 2016 decision as the Tenant has attempted to do here.
The tenant’s application is therefore dismissed.
However, the landlord requested that the parties names are suppressed from this order. In my assessment that is a reasonable approach, I can see no public interest in this this order being published with the parties names notified, the outcome is largely a technical and jurisdictional one. Accordingly the landlords application for duel name suppression is granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4705629 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4705629 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Frequently asked questions