Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 4904033 — Tenancy dispute at 106 Brewer Rd, Waverly, Taranaki 4592
Decided 4 Oct 2024 · Published 4 Oct 2024 · Application 4904033
Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Location
Taranaki
Tribunal region
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.
Order
- The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
- The tenant’s application is dismissed.
Reasons
- The Tribunal made an interim order on 18 September 2024 requiring the applicant to file by email by 5 pm 27 September 2024 submissions regarding its claims and the provisions of the Limitation Act 2010, the specifics of its claims with reference to the appropriate sections of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and details of witnesses it may call.
- The interim order clearly specified: “4. If the tenant fails to submit the information required under paragraph 2 then the tenant’s application will be dismissed.
- Any evidence, information or submissions not filed by the dates referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 above will not be accepted by the Tribunal.”
- The Reasons provided in that order specified the delays and extensions granted and noted: “5. The tenant is to be given a final opportunity to provide the information originally sought by the Tribunal’s email of 8 August 2024. If the tenant does not file the information required, then the tenant’s claim will be dismissed.”
- The tenant had not filed submissions or any further information by 5 pm 27 September 2024.
- The tenant’s new counsel filed a memorandum on 27 September 2024 seeking a further extension of time of four weeks.
- The landlord’s counsel has filed a memorandum on 1 October 2024 opposing the request for an extension of time and asking that the Tribunal dismiss the tenant’s application in accordance with its order of 18 September 2024.
- The landlord’s counsel also claims that the tenant’s claims are barred by section 11(1) of the Limitation Act 2010 as the date on which the tenant’s application was filed was more than six years after the acts or omissions alleged against the landlord occurred.
- The history of the tenant’s application is as follows: a. The tenancy ended on 31 May 2018. b. The tenant’s application was filed on 31 May 2024. c. It was set down for a case conference by telephone on 19 July 2024. d. The landlord requested an adjournment on 15 July 2024. e. A new hearing date of 2 August 2024 was set. f. The tenant’s counsel requested an adjournment on 1 August 2024 which was granted. g. A new hearing date of 9 August 2024 was set. h. A request for an adjournment was received by the tenant’s counsel on 8 August 2024. i. The Tribunal directed that instead of a case conference, the tenant’s counsel file further necessary information by 16 August 2024. j. On 14 August 2024 the date for filing that information was extended to 23 August 2024. k. The tenant’s counsel sought a further adjournment on 23 August 2024 to 27 August 2024. No further information has been filed. l. A new hearing date of 18 September 2024 was set. m. The tenant’s counsel sought an adjournment on 17 September 2024 and advised new counsel would be necessary. n. The Tribunal issued its interim order on 18 September 2024 setting out final timetabling.
- It is appropriate to dismiss the tenant’s application for the following reasons: a. There have been four hearing dates which have been adjourned. b. There have been two adjournments granted for the filing of sufficient particulars to specify the tenant’s claims and determine the issue of limitation. c. The Tribunal’s Order of 18 September 2024 was explicit as to the consequences of failure to meet the final deadline. d. The landlord has already been put to expense by the proceedings to date and it is unreasonable that they be allowed to continue when the tenant has failed repeatedly to adhere to the timetables set by the Tribunal. e. No explanation has been given by the tenant as to the extraordinary delay of six years since the end of the tenancy in filing its application.