What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4764617 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been previously made in this case, and the

How much money was awarded in case 4764617?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4764617?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4764617?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10258926-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4764617 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been previously made in this case, and the

How much money was awarded in case 4764617?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4764617?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4764617?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10258926-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2E, 8 Scotia Place, Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4764617 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

On 24 March 2024, the Tribunal made an order determining the Tribunal had jurisdiction, and refunding the bond to the tenant. As the tenant was substantially successful, her name was suppressed.

Under Section 95A(1) RTA suppression order must be granted if on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings.

The landlord did not seek suppression at hearing, but has since sought suppression.

A suppression order may be made on the application of any other party.

In the present case, the landlord was not wholly or substantially successful.

I have considered if I should grant a name suppression order for the landlord having regard to the interests of the parties and public interest under Section 95A(4) RTA.

I am mindful that open justice is a fundamental principle in our legal system. The issue here I need to consider is whether suppressing the landlord’s name and identifying details outweigh the interest of the open justice reporting principle.

The landlord seeks suppression on the basis that: a. If he is not granted suppression, it may have an impact on my ability to rent rooms/property in the future which he believes is unfair as he was always a good tenant who paid rent on time, and he is a university student who is searching for a room to rent currently. b. The impact of potentially being turned away by landlords to rent a room in the future could seriously impact his education. c. He never intended any harm to anyone in this case. He considers it was more of a misunderstanding, and things may have progressed differently if he had submitted a counter claim for the return of the bond. However, due to the stress this situation caused him, he decided it was not worth his time and decided to not submit the claim. d. The tenant was not fully successful in her claim and “therefore I think it would be unfair to not have both names suppressed.”

In my view, the application for name suppression and identifying details ought to be declined for the following reasons: a. It is common for parties appearing before the Tribunal to seek suppression orders. But that is not of itself a sufficient reason to make the order. b. The disputes before me are not unusual or other than the ordinary business of the Tribunal. c. The open justice principle requires the outcome of adjudication to be available to the public; and d. Weighing up the interests of the landlord and the public interest, the public interest outweighs the landlord’s interests.

Accordingly, no order is made for suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Reasons

On 24 March 2024, the Tribunal made an order determining the Tribunal had jurisdiction, and refunding the bond to the tenant. As the tenant was substantially successful, her name was suppressed.

Under Section 95A(1) RTA suppression order must be granted if on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings.

The landlord did not seek suppression at hearing, but has since sought suppression.

A suppression order may be made on the application of any other party.

In the present case, the landlord was not wholly or substantially successful.

I have considered if I should grant a name suppression order for the landlord having regard to the interests of the parties and public interest under Section 95A(4) RTA.

Accordingly, no order is made for suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4764617 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 2E, 8 Scotia Place, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4764617 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 2E, 8 Scotia Place, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions