What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4767827 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4767827?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4767827?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4767827?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10372787-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4767827 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4767827?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4767827?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4767827?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10372787-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4767827 — 14-day notice

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The applicant claimed the landlord notice to terminate, served 3 November 2023, did not comply with the reasons stated in the notice, see section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
Since the tenant application was lodged there has been more disclosure of the background to the landlord notice.
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered.
The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the landlord, at the time of the notice being served, had no intention of the premises being used as the principal place of residence for the owner or member of the owner’s family, the subsequent change in circumstances notwithstanding.
Given the tenants had already ended the tenancy via their own notice before the change in the circumstances of the landlord, I have not considered any possible application of s 85 RTA. 1
The application is therefore dismissed. 1 When considering claims, the Tribunal must consider s 85 RTA which provides that the Tribunal shall determine a dispute according to the substantial merits and justice of the case and in doing so, shall have regard for the law but shall not be bound to give legal effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. This provision recognises that, although applying established legal principles will generally produce a fair result, there are circumstances where it will not. In this situation, the Tribunal is entitled to depart from the strict application of the law to achieve a just outcome. Equally, where the law is uncertain, the Tribunal may adapt an approach that best meets the merits and justice of the case. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The landlord requested suppression at the hearing. Given the dismissal of the tenant application such suppression is appropriate and ordered.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

All parties attended the hearing.
The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
The applicant claimed the landlord notice to terminate, served 3 November 2023, did not comply with the reasons stated in the notice, see section 55(1)(a) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
A party who brings a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal must prove on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that their version of events took place. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden of proof.
The issue of evidence at Tenancy Tribunal hearings was considered by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02. Judge Mather stated: “...[the applicant] needs to be reminded that like anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or a Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.”
Since the tenant application was lodged there has been more disclosure of the background to the landlord notice.
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered.
The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that the landlord, at the time of the notice being served, had no intention of the premises being used as the principal place of residence for the owner or member of the owner’s family, the subsequent change in circumstances notwithstanding.
Given the tenants had already ended the tenancy via their own notice before the change in the circumstances of the landlord, I have not considered any possible application of s 85 RTA. 1
The application is therefore dismissed. 1 When considering claims, the Tribunal must consider s 85 RTA which provides that the Tribunal shall determine a dispute according to the substantial merits and justice of the case and in doing so, shall have regard for the law but shall not be bound to give legal effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. This provision recognises that, although applying established legal principles will generally produce a fair result, there are circumstances where it will not. In this situation, the Tribunal is entitled to depart from the strict application of the law to achieve a just outcome. Equally, where the law is uncertain, the Tribunal may adapt an approach that best meets the merits and justice of the case. Suppression
Section 95A RTA states regarding suppression orders that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
Further, the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published.
The landlord requested suppression at the hearing. Given the dismissal of the tenant application such suppression is appropriate and ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4767827 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4767827 — 14-day notice

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