What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5065308 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of both the Tenant and Landlord’s names and

How much money was awarded in case 5065308?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5065308?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5065308?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11395280-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5065308 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of both the Tenant and Landlord’s names and

How much money was awarded in case 5065308?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5065308?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Mould & damp.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5065308?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11395280-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5065308 — Rent arrears

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mrs [Tenant] attended on behalf of her husband, Mr [Tenant] (with his authority) as he was away for work.

The tenancy began on 26 September 2023 and ended on 6 July 2024.

The landlord filed this claim on 9 November 2024 seeking rent arrears in the amount of $537.14 together with compensation in the amount of $560.00 as follows: a. Bath cleaning – $210.00 b. Rubbish dumping – $200.00 c. Section tidy up - $150.00

However the tenant, with the assistance of Community Legal Advice Whanganui, has drawn the Tribunal’s attention to the fact that the landlord had previously filed an almost identical application.

The landlord’s previous application (TT 4946573) was filed on 11 August 2024 and sought rent arrears, full cleaning, lawnmowing and section tidy-up and putting back boundaries to the garden, and cleaning and sealing the edge of the bathtub. The tenant also filed a cross claim and the claims were heard together.

The Tribunal made orders on both claims on 4 November 2024. The landlord sought a rehearing of the Tribunal’s decision on the basis that new evidence had become available but the landlord’s application was dismissed on 7 November 2024 the basis that the evidence would have been available at the first hearing.

Tribunal Orders are final. If landlord considers that the orders have been incorrectly calculated or are wrong then the correct course of action is an appeal. The landlord cannot simply file a new claim and start the process over again 1 .

At the hearing the landlord conceded that some of the matters were included in his original application but explained that two of the matters were new. He said that he had originally only made a claim for cleaning materials for cleaning mould in the bathroom but now wanted to claim for his time doing the cleaning which he estimated at $200.00. He also said that the claim for rubbish removal was new as he forgot to include it in his first application.

There is a legal principle known as the ‘rule in Henderson v Henderson’ which states that the parties are required to present their entire case during the course of legal proceedings. A party cannot open up the same litigation and include new claims that could have been brought in the original claim 2 .

The landlord could have brought the “new” claims as part of his original claim but failed to do so.

The landlord’s claim is accordingly dismissed.

Both the landlord and the tenant were granted name suppression in the original cross claims and so I have carried over that name suppression into this decision 1 See section 80 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 2 See Henderson v Henderson [1843] 3 Hare 100, Muir, Bradbury , Peebles and Maud v Commissioner of Inland revenue [2017] NZHC 1619 and Marks v Robb [2021] NZTT New Plymouth 4282507, 4284130 to ensure that they cannot now be identified from this decision. See section 95A Residential Tenancies Act 95A.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of both the Tenant and Landlord’s names and identifying details.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mrs [Tenant] attended on behalf of her husband, Mr [Tenant] (with his authority) as he was away for work.
The tenancy began on 26 September 2023 and ended on 6 July 2024.
The landlord filed this claim on 9 November 2024 seeking rent arrears in the amount of $537.14 together with compensation in the amount of $560.00 as follows: a. Bath cleaning – $210.00 b. Rubbish dumping – $200.00 c. Section tidy up - $150.00
However the tenant, with the assistance of Community Legal Advice Whanganui, has drawn the Tribunal’s attention to the fact that the landlord had previously filed an almost identical application.
The landlord’s previous application (TT 4946573) was filed on 11 August 2024 and sought rent arrears, full cleaning, lawnmowing and section tidy-up and putting back boundaries to the garden, and cleaning and sealing the edge of the bathtub. The tenant also filed a cross claim and the claims were heard together.
The Tribunal made orders on both claims on 4 November 2024. The landlord sought a rehearing of the Tribunal’s decision on the basis that new evidence had become available but the landlord’s application was dismissed on 7 November 2024 the basis that the evidence would have been available at the first hearing.
Tribunal Orders are final. If landlord considers that the orders have been incorrectly calculated or are wrong then the correct course of action is an appeal. The landlord cannot simply file a new claim and start the process over again 1 .
At the hearing the landlord conceded that some of the matters were included in his original application but explained that two of the matters were new. He said that he had originally only made a claim for cleaning materials for cleaning mould in the bathroom but now wanted to claim for his time doing the cleaning which he estimated at $200.00. He also said that the claim for rubbish removal was new as he forgot to include it in his first application.
There is a legal principle known as the ‘rule in Henderson v Henderson’ which states that the parties are required to present their entire case during the course of legal proceedings. A party cannot open up the same litigation and include new claims that could have been brought in the original claim 2 .
The landlord could have brought the “new” claims as part of his original claim but failed to do so.
The landlord’s claim is accordingly dismissed.
Both the landlord and the tenant were granted name suppression in the original cross claims and so I have carried over that name suppression into this decision 1 See section 80 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 2 See Henderson v Henderson [1843] 3 Hare 100, Muir, Bradbury , Peebles and Maud v Commissioner of Inland revenue [2017] NZHC 1619 and Marks v Robb [2021] NZTT New Plymouth 4282507, 4284130 to ensure that they cannot now be identified from this decision. See section 95A Residential Tenancies Act 95A.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5065308 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5065308 — Rent arrears

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