What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4776419 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4776419?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4776419?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4776419?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10948541-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4776419 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4776419?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4776419?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4776419?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10948541-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

131 Hira Access Road, Onewhero, RD 2, Onewhero 2697 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4776419 — Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
The Application is dismissed.

Reasons

This matter was set down with me on the 10 October 2024. [The landlord/s] and her daughter attend the hearing by telephone. Mr Blundell did not attend the hearing. Background.
On the 21 August 2023, after the tenancy had ended, I made and order against Ms Rebecca Blundell in respect of a tenancy at 131 Hira Access Road Onewhero. See TT 4520437. That order required Rebecca Blundell also known as Rebecca Krybolder to pay the landlord $7,005.44 .
On the 25 September 2023 Ms Rebecca Blundell was adjudicated bankrupt.
In January this year the landlord filed this application against Rebecca’s husband Mr Matt Blundell, who she claims was also a tenant in the tenancy and is seeking to have the order made by me on the 21 August 2023 also made against Mr Matt Blundell. There were issues with serving Mr Blundell, but I made an order for substituted service and I am satisfied that the service requirements have been met.
There are two questions that need to be determined by me in order to determine this mater. a) Is [The landlord/s] allowed to bring proceedings against Matt Blundell after the proceedings against Rebecca Blundell have been determined, or has she lost her chance to do so? b) Was Mr Blundell a tenant? Is [The landlord/s] allowed to bring proceedings against Matt Blundell after the proceedings against Rebecca Blundell have been determined, or has she lost her chance to do so?
The legal principal Res Judicata applies. What that means is a party cannot bring another claim about the same matter that has already been determined in judicial proceedings. This includes bringing an action against a party who ought to have been properly added to the proceedings in the first instance, known as the rule in Re Henderson (Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100, 67 ER 313).
Re Henderson was cited in another case Muir, Bradbury, Peebles and Maud v Commissioner of Inland Revenue, and in particular to the paragraphs about striking out and res judicata. See CIV-2011-404-1132 [2015] NZHC 792A, where the High Court said (when referring to the rule in Henderson) that the question that the court (or Tribunal) should ask is “ is the question before the court one that could have been raised with reasonable diligence in the earlier proceedings ?” This means that the question the Tribunal has to consider here is -Could Mr Blundell’s liability as a tenant been raised with reasonable diligence in the landlord’s claims against Mrs Blundell TT 4520437.
TT 4520437 was a determination of the tenant’s liability for vacated damages and rent. Usually, the Tribunal would require any landlord bringing such an application to bring the claim against all tenants at that time, to ensure a fair and expeditious process.
[The landlord/s] says that she did not bring the claim against Mr Blundell as she had not thought to do so. She did not take any legal advice or advice from Tenancy Services before filing the claim, she is elderly, this was her first time as a landlord. She had also been assured by Mrs Blundell/ Krybolder that she would see her right. Mrs Blundell/ Krybolder’s father is a long-time friend and neighbour of the landlord and she trusted that the family would see her right and not leave her out of pocket.
The landlord also says that it would be manifestly unfair to allow the Mr Blundell to escape his responsibilities to pay rent and leave the property in the condition it was left simply because she had not included him in the original proceedings.
The landlord does not seek any further determination of the substantial claims, but simply to have the amount awarded also be awarded against Mr Blundell.
Mr Blundell has been served with these proceedings but did not take any steps to defend the claim, he did not attend today’s hearing. The landlord understands that Mr and Mrs Blundell still live together with their children.
The Tribunal must always consider that the people that come before it are lay people who may not have any experience in legal proceedings, this can be contrasted with parties who find themselves in the High Court, like in the Muir case, who are usually represented or have taken legal advice.
Section 85 of the RTA recognises this distinction and says: Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised. (1)Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2)The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.
An application of s85 to this case means that I must balance the need for overall fairness, with the expeditious resolution of matters. Subsection 2 means that I am bound by the principle of res judicata, but when considering the “reasonable diligence’” in bringing the claim I can consider the substantial merits and justice of this case.
Section 85 also recognises that each case before the Tribunal is unique, and it has to be determined on the facts of that particular case. Therefore, a finding that allows the landlord to bring her claim against Mr Blundell would not open the floodgates to allow landlords or tenants to bring their claims against one party at a time.
Whilst I consider that the landlord should have and could have included Mr Blundell in her original claim. I consider that in this instance, it is appropriate for the Tribunal to consider the landlord’s application because the tenant is already aware of the proceeding and has been invited to attend the hearing so there is no harm in making a determination on whether Mr Blundell is a tenant. I also consider that not determining the substantive issue of whether Mr Blundell is a tenant or not, is more likely to protract proceedings rather than expediate them, as it may lead to an appeal on that point. I consider it more expeditious to deal with both questions, and therefore it either party wishes to exercise appeal rights then both questions can be determined on appeal.

Was Mr Blundell a tenant?

The definition of tenant in the RTA is: tenant, in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, means the grantee of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement.
Landlords are expected to provide a tenancy agreement in writing (S13 RTA) This means that the names of the tenant/s are recorded and it is clear who is the landlord and who is the tenant.
There was no tenancy agreement signed in this tenancy. The landlord says that this is because she did not know she was required to do so, and that because of her close personal friendship with Rebecca’s father who was her neighbour. The only document that was signed was an agreement between the landlord and Mrs Blundell / Krybolder which acknowledged a debt of rent arrears. The landlord tells me that Mr Blundell was present when that document was singed by did not sign it, and the document does not record him as a debtor (tenant).
All of the rent payments made to the landlord were from Rebecca C Blundell. Mr Blundell made no payments.
Mr Blundell lived in the premises over the whole time with Mrs Blundell and their children. However, the landlord accepts that nearly all her communication about the tenancy was with Rebecca. She does recall asking Mr Blundell to trim some trees at the property and that that work could be done in lieu of rent, but he wanted payment for the work instead.
The landlord has not satisfied me on the balance of probabilities that Mr Blundell was the tenant. In coming to this decision, I have put considerable weight on the written document made on the 16 January 2023 which was for rent arrears. I consider that had the landlord considered Mr Blundell as her tenant and liable for the rent until that date that she would have had him be a party to this agreement, especially as she has confirmed that he was there when the agreement was drafted and signed. I have also put weight on the fact that the payments all came from Rebecca’s account.
I therefore dismiss the landlord’s application.
I have suppressed the landlord’s name as that is consistent with the previous orders I have made, which are referred to in this decision.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.
The Application is dismissed.

Reasons

This matter was set down with me on the 10 October 2024. [The landlord/s] and her daughter attend the hearing by telephone. Mr Blundell did not attend the hearing. Background.
On the 21 August 2023, after the tenancy had ended, I made and order against Ms Rebecca Blundell in respect of a tenancy at 131 Hira Access Road Onewhero. See TT 4520437. That order required Rebecca Blundell also known as Rebecca Krybolder to pay the landlord $7,005.44 .
On the 25 September 2023 Ms Rebecca Blundell was adjudicated bankrupt.
In January this year the landlord filed this application against Rebecca’s husband Mr Matt Blundell, who she claims was also a tenant in the tenancy and is seeking to have the order made by me on the 21 August 2023 also made against Mr Matt Blundell. There were issues with serving Mr Blundell, but I made an order for substituted service and I am satisfied that the service requirements have been met.
There are two questions that need to be determined by me in order to determine this mater. a) Is [The landlord/s] allowed to bring proceedings against Matt Blundell after the proceedings against Rebecca Blundell have been determined, or has she lost her chance to do so? b) Was Mr Blundell a tenant? Is [The landlord/s] allowed to bring proceedings against Matt Blundell after the proceedings against Rebecca Blundell have been determined, or has she lost her chance to do so?
The legal principal Res Judicata applies. What that means is a party cannot bring another claim about the same matter that has already been determined in judicial proceedings. This includes bringing an action against a party who ought to have been properly added to the proceedings in the first instance, known as the rule in Re Henderson (Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100, 67 ER 313).
Re Henderson was cited in another case Muir, Bradbury, Peebles and Maud v Commissioner of Inland Revenue, and in particular to the paragraphs about striking out and res judicata. See CIV-2011-404-1132 [2015] NZHC 792A, where the High Court said (when referring to the rule in Henderson) that the question that the court (or Tribunal) should ask is “ is the question before the court one that could have been raised with reasonable diligence in the earlier proceedings ?” This means that the question the Tribunal has to consider here is -Could Mr Blundell’s liability as a tenant been raised with reasonable diligence in the landlord’s claims against Mrs Blundell TT 4520437.
TT 4520437 was a determination of the tenant’s liability for vacated damages and rent. Usually, the Tribunal would require any landlord bringing such an application to bring the claim against all tenants at that time, to ensure a fair and expeditious process.
[The landlord/s] says that she did not bring the claim against Mr Blundell as she had not thought to do so. She did not take any legal advice or advice from Tenancy Services before filing the claim, she is elderly, this was her first time as a landlord. She had also been assured by Mrs Blundell/ Krybolder that she would see her right. Mrs Blundell/ Krybolder’s father is a long-time friend and neighbour of the landlord and she trusted that the family would see her right and not leave her out of pocket.
The landlord also says that it would be manifestly unfair to allow the Mr Blundell to escape his responsibilities to pay rent and leave the property in the condition it was left simply because she had not included him in the original proceedings.
The landlord does not seek any further determination of the substantial claims, but simply to have the amount awarded also be awarded against Mr Blundell.
Mr Blundell has been served with these proceedings but did not take any steps to defend the claim, he did not attend today’s hearing. The landlord understands that Mr and Mrs Blundell still live together with their children.
The Tribunal must always consider that the people that come before it are lay people who may not have any experience in legal proceedings, this can be contrasted with parties who find themselves in the High Court, like in the Muir case, who are usually represented or have taken legal advice.
Section 85 of the RTA recognises this distinction and says: Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised. (1)Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2)The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.
An application of s85 to this case means that I must balance the need for overall fairness, with the expeditious resolution of matters. Subsection 2 means that I am bound by the principle of res judicata, but when considering the “reasonable diligence’” in bringing the claim I can consider the substantial merits and justice of this case.
Section 85 also recognises that each case before the Tribunal is unique, and it has to be determined on the facts of that particular case. Therefore, a finding that allows the landlord to bring her claim against Mr Blundell would not open the floodgates to allow landlords or tenants to bring their claims against one party at a time.
Whilst I consider that the landlord should have and could have included Mr Blundell in her original claim. I consider that in this instance, it is appropriate for the Tribunal to consider the landlord’s application because the tenant is already aware of the proceeding and has been invited to attend the hearing so there is no harm in making a determination on whether Mr Blundell is a tenant. I also consider that not determining the substantive issue of whether Mr Blundell is a tenant or not, is more likely to protract proceedings rather than expediate them, as it may lead to an appeal on that point. I consider it more expeditious to deal with both questions, and therefore it either party wishes to exercise appeal rights then both questions can be determined on appeal.

Was Mr Blundell a tenant?

The definition of tenant in the RTA is: tenant, in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, means the grantee of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement.
Landlords are expected to provide a tenancy agreement in writing (S13 RTA) This means that the names of the tenant/s are recorded and it is clear who is the landlord and who is the tenant.
There was no tenancy agreement signed in this tenancy. The landlord says that this is because she did not know she was required to do so, and that because of her close personal friendship with Rebecca’s father who was her neighbour. The only document that was signed was an agreement between the landlord and Mrs Blundell / Krybolder which acknowledged a debt of rent arrears. The landlord tells me that Mr Blundell was present when that document was singed by did not sign it, and the document does not record him as a debtor (tenant).
All of the rent payments made to the landlord were from Rebecca C Blundell. Mr Blundell made no payments.
Mr Blundell lived in the premises over the whole time with Mrs Blundell and their children. However, the landlord accepts that nearly all her communication about the tenancy was with Rebecca. She does recall asking Mr Blundell to trim some trees at the property and that that work could be done in lieu of rent, but he wanted payment for the work instead.
The landlord has not satisfied me on the balance of probabilities that Mr Blundell was the tenant. In coming to this decision, I have put considerable weight on the written document made on the 16 January 2023 which was for rent arrears. I consider that had the landlord considered Mr Blundell as her tenant and liable for the rent until that date that she would have had him be a party to this agreement, especially as she has confirmed that he was there when the agreement was drafted and signed. I have also put weight on the fact that the payments all came from Rebecca’s account.
I therefore dismiss the landlord’s application.
I have suppressed the landlord’s name as that is consistent with the previous orders I have made, which are referred to in this decision.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4776419 — Rent arrears at 131 Hira Access Road, Onewhero, RD 2, Onewhero 2697

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4776419 — Rent arrears at 131 Hira Access Road, Onewhero, RD 2, Onewhero 2697

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was Mr Blundell a tenant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Was Mr Blundell a tenant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions