What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4916853 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed (by reason of res judicata).

How much money was awarded in case 4916853?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4916853?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4916853?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10511093-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4916853 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed (by reason of res judicata).

How much money was awarded in case 4916853?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4916853?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4916853?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10511093-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

114 Duncan Road, Santoft, RD 1, Bulls 4894 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4916853 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application is dismissed (by reason of res judicata).

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing. Calls to the tenant went unanswered.
The landlord seeks an order for possession of the premises under section 64 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’) on grounds that its 90 days’ notice issued to the tenant on 28 December 2023 has expired on 31 March 2024. The landlord’s notice was couched under section 51(2)(f) RTA in that the landlord requires the premises for extensive refurbishment which would not be reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation of the premises while the work is undertaken.
However the landlord has previously applied under application 4886880 for possession of the premises on the same grounds that its 90 days’ notice issued to the tenant on 28 December 2023 has expired on 31 March 2024.
The Tribunal in its order dated 31 May 2024 determined that there was insufficient evidence before it to be satisfied that that the landlord requires the premises for extensive refurbishment which would not be reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation of the premises while the work is undertaken.
In dismissing the landlord’s claim for possession of the premises, Adjudicator G Baker reasoned in his order of 31 May 2024 as follows:
In the absence of knowing exactly what was required or providing any evidence to support the nature of the works intended, the landlord has not established that the works would be extensive or of such a nature and extent that the tenant could not remain in the property.
Other than the termination notice itself, the landlord has provided no evidence to confirm or support that the work would be commenced, or material steps taken, within 90 days of the termination.
The landlord has not established any of the three criteria which must all be met for the termination notice to be valid.
As the landlord has not proven on the balance of probabilities that the termination notice was valid, the landlord has not proven that it had a right to possession of the premises at the expiry of its notice.
Under the principles of res judicata, the landlord cannot refile another application seeking another determination of the same subject matter which has already been duly heard and determined by a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction.
Any issue regarding the correctness of the earlier decision is a matter for appeal and/or an application for rehearing, if sufficient grounds are established.
I therefore do not have jurisdiction to make another determination on the landlord’s current claim for a possession order under section 64 RTA in respect of the same expired notice to vacate dated 28 December 2023. I also do not have jurisdiction to revisit the evidence previously adduced before the Tribunal and the further evidence adduced in this application before me.
For those reasons, which is founded on the common law principle of estoppel, I must dismiss the present application before me.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing. Calls to the tenant went unanswered.

The landlord seeks an order for possession of the premises under section 64 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’) on grounds that its 90 days’ notice issued to the tenant on 28 December 2023 has expired on 31 March 2024. The landlord’s notice was couched under section 51(2)(f) RTA in that the landlord requires the premises for extensive refurbishment which would not be reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation of the premises while the work is undertaken.

However the landlord has previously applied under application 4886880 for possession of the premises on the same grounds that its 90 days’ notice issued to the tenant on 28 December 2023 has expired on 31 March 2024.

The Tribunal in its order dated 31 May 2024 determined that there was insufficient evidence before it to be satisfied that that the landlord requires the premises for extensive refurbishment which would not be reasonably practicable for the tenant to remain in occupation of the premises while the work is undertaken.

In dismissing the landlord’s claim for possession of the premises, Adjudicator G Baker reasoned in his order of 31 May 2024 as follows:

In the absence of knowing exactly what was required or providing any evidence to support the nature of the works intended, the landlord has not established that the works would be extensive or of such a nature and extent that the tenant could not remain in the property.

Other than the termination notice itself, the landlord has provided no evidence to confirm or support that the work would be commenced, or material steps taken, within 90 days of the termination.

The landlord has not established any of the three criteria which must all be met for the termination notice to be valid.

As the landlord has not proven on the balance of probabilities that the termination notice was valid, the landlord has not proven that it had a right to possession of the premises at the expiry of its notice.

Under the principles of res judicata, the landlord cannot refile another application seeking another determination of the same subject matter which has already been duly heard and determined by a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction.

Any issue regarding the correctness of the earlier decision is a matter for appeal and/or an application for rehearing, if sufficient grounds are established.

I therefore do not have jurisdiction to make another determination on the landlord’s current claim for a possession order under section 64 RTA in respect of the same expired notice to vacate dated 28 December 2023. I also do not have jurisdiction to revisit the evidence previously adduced before the Tribunal and the further evidence adduced in this application before me.

For those reasons, which is founded on the common law principle of estoppel, I must dismiss the present application before me.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4916853 — Tenancy dispute at 114 Duncan Road, Santoft, RD 1, Bulls 4894

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4916853 — Tenancy dispute at 114 Duncan Road, Santoft, RD 1, Bulls 4894

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions