What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5000033 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 5000033?

Rent Arrears: $2,665.71 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $587.77 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5000033?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5000033?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11202439-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5000033 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 5000033?

Rent Arrears: $2,665.71 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $587.77 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5000033?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5000033?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11202439-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

41 Thornlow Street, Glendene, Auckland 0602 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5000033 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5000033 — net $3,253.48 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears from 13/7/24 to 26/11/24	$2,665.71	Rent arrears from 13/7/24 to 26/11/24
Water rates	$587.77	Water rates
Net award	$3,253.48
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,253.48

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5000033 — net $3,253.48 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears from 13/7/24 to 26/11/24	$2,665.71	Rent arrears from 13/7/24 to 26/11/24
Water rates	$587.77	Water rates
Net award	$3,253.48
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$3,253.48

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay Zhixiang Lin $3,253.48 immediately, as calculated in the table below:
All other claims by the landlord are dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenant attended by video conference.
The landlord attended the hearing by phone with the assistance of an interpreter.
The landlord has applied for termination, rent arrears, water rates, payment of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The tenancy is periodic and commenced on 3 March 2023. Relevant legal provisions
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or 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.
In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the evidence provided, but the parties should know that I have considered all the evidence. Termination
The landlord had applied for termination however he has recently sold the property and does not seek a termination order.
I understand the tenant has been given notice to terminate the tenancy (from the new owner – which I refer to further below) and the tenant will be vacating within that notice period. In the meantime, she has been paying rent to the landlord in these proceedings.
As the landlord does not seek a termination order the application for termination is dismissed. Previous proceedings
The RTA requires the Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants and to 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 it is not bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. See section 85 of the RTA.
The Tribunal make strike out, in whole or in part, a proceeding, if satisfied that it is otherwise an abuse of process. See section 92A of the RTA.
The principle of law known as “res judicata” prevents parties re-litigating a matter that has been finally decided on its merits.
The rule of Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100 is a long-standing legal principle that requires a party to bring their entire case during the course of a single legal proceeding.
In considering whether the proceedings were an abuse of process these principles have been considered by the Court of Appeal in Craig v Stringer [2020] NZCA 260 [26 June 2020] at para [16] – [19] as follows: [16] Access to the courts will be denied where a litigant seeks to reopen a dispute that has already been determined. This is precluded by the doctrine of res judicata which serves the public interest in finality in litigation and upholds the principle that a party should not be vexed twice in the same matter. Res judicata applies where a cause of action has been determined in earlier proceedings between the same parties or their privies — cause of action estoppel. The doctrine prevents re- litigation of the same cause of action in any subsequent proceedings. Res judicata can also apply where there has been a determination in earlier proceedings between the same parties or their privies of an issue that was essential to the determination of the claim such that the judgment could not stand without it — issue estoppel. Issue estoppel is narrower, and less absolute in its application than cause of action estoppel. [17] A related principle is that the parties are required to bring forward their whole case and will generally be prevented from later attempting to re-open the same subject on a different basis. This principle was first recognised by Wigram V-C in Henderson v Henderson : [W]here a given matter becomes the subject of litigation in, and of adjudication by, a Court of competent jurisdiction, the Court requires the parties to that litigation to bring forward their whole case, and will not (except under special circumstances) permit the same parties to open the same subject of litigation in respect of matter which might have been brought forward as part of the subject in contest, but which was not brought forward, only because they have, from negligence, inadvertence, or even accident, omitted part of their case. [18] ... The underlying policy is to promote finality in litigation and ensure a defendant is not oppressed by successive suits. The objection is not that the law will not contemplate or tolerate apparently inconsistent decisions. [19] Lord Sumption explained the juridical difference between the doctrine of res judicata and the Henderson v Henderson principle in Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd : Res judicata is a rule of substantive law, while abuse of process is a concept which informs the exercise of the court’s procedural powers. In my view, they are distinct although overlapping legal principles with the common underlying purpose of limiting abusive and duplicative litigation. That purpose makes it necessary to qualify the absolute character of both cause of action estoppel and issue estoppel where the conduct is not abusive. (“footnotes omitted”) This case
The landlord is attempting to relitigate matters that have already been dealt with. The tenant raised this issue in the hearing and I have now reviewed the previous order. The landlord filed his original application on 1 May 2024. In that claim he sought termination, rent arrears, water rates and payment of the bond.
The Tribunal dismissed the landlord’s claims by order of the Tribunal dated 12 July 2024 [2024] NZTT 4876143 4921233. The landlord applied for a rehearing which was also dismissed.
The landlord’s claims for rent arrears and water rates were adjudicated in the previous hearing in the Tribunal. I consider this current application to be subject to res judicata and an abuse of process.
Accordingly, the claims for rent arrears and water rates to 12 July 2024 are dismissed. Mitigation of loss
If I am wrong in my reasons above in dismissing the landlord’s claims for rent arrears and water rates to 12 July 2024 then I refer to the obligation on the landlord to mitigate his loss. Where a party to a tenancy agreement breaches any provisions of the agreement or the RTA, the other party shall take all reasonable steps to limit damage or loss arising from that breach, in accordance with the rules of law relating to mitigation of loss or damage upon breach of contract. See section 49 of the RTA.
Every landlord must keep or cause to be kept proper business records showing all payments of rent paid by or on behalf of the tenant. See Section 30 of the RTA.
The landlord did not keep proper business records by way of a clear rental statement that could be provided for the previous hearing.
The rent statement provided for this hearing was also inaccurate. I refer to this below.
I therefore consider the landlord did not mitigate his loss by having accurate records to support his application to the Tribunal. I consider the rent arrears ordered, which I address below, reflects the landlord’s failure to mitigate his loss. Rent arrears
Following the previous hearing the tenancy continued and the landlord claims rent arrears and water rates from after the hearing. I consider I can make an order in respect of rent arrears from 12 July 2024. The landlord provided a rent summary for the hearing.
The tenant raised her concern that the rent summary omitted some of her payments. The tenant estimated she was approximately three weeks in arrears.
I directed both parties file bank statements and any relevant documentation to the Tribunal by 5.00pm on 10 December 2024.
The landlord’s bank statements do not reconcile with the rent statement provided and it does appear that some rent payments have been missed by the landlord.
Relying on the landlord’s bank statements I have calculated the rent arrears and I have made an order for rent arrears for the period 13 July 2024 – 26 November 2024. Sale of property
I note that the landlord said that he sold the property in late November 2024.
I take judicial notice that homes.co.nz records the property was sold on 15 October 2024.
The tenant is not liable for rent to the purchaser until she has received notice of the sale of the property. See section 15 and 43 of the RTA.
I understand she has not received this notice as required by the RTA.
I also understand the landlord did not notify the tenant until the weekend of 1 December 2024 that the property had been sold.
I have no information as to what arrangements have been made between the landlord and the purchaser with respect to the rent payments, but in any event the tenant remains liable for rent and I have made an order accordingly. Water rates
The tenant confirmed she has not paid any water rates for the duration of the tenancy.
The landlord has provided the tenant with water rates invoices received since the hearing on 12 July 2024.
I make an order for the water and wastewater consumption rates amounts as follows: 2 July 2024 – 1 August 2024$101.34 1 August 2024 – 30 August 2024$157.09 30 August 2024 – 1 October 2024$141.88 1 October 2024 – 1 November 2024$121.61 1 November 2024 – 18 November 2024$65.85 Total water rates to 1 November 2024$587.77 Bond
As this tenancy is continuing, I have not made any order in respect of the bond. The bond is to remain with the Bond Centre. Filing fee
As the landlord has not been wholly or substantially successful, I have not reimbursed the filing fee. Suppression
The landlord did not seek name suppression.
The tenant seeks name suppression and has she has been substantially successful in defending the claim I make an order accordingly.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5000033 — Rent arrears at 41 Thornlow Street, Glendene, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5000033 — Rent arrears at 41 Thornlow Street, Glendene, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions