What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5190013 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5190013?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5190013?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5190013?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12117538-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5190013 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5190013?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5190013?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5190013?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12117538-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

62C Taylor Street, Blockhouse Bay, Auckland 0600 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5190013 — Rent arrears

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy ended on 22 August 2024.
On 26 September 2024, the landlord filed an application seeking rent arrears (application 4984808).
On 27 November 2024, application 4984808 was adjourned to enable the landlord to file a rent summary.
On 18 February 2025, a hearing was held remotely for application 4984808. The tenant attended the remote hearing. The landlord did not.
By order dated 18 February 2025, application 4984808 was dismissed and an order was made that the tenant’s name not be published.
The landlord did not file an application for re-hearing, or appeal in relation to application 4984808.
On 7 March 2025, the landlord filed the present new application seeking rent arrears.
On 15 July 2025, a face-to-face hearing was held at Waitakere District Court.
The landlord attended. The tenant did not. Legal principles
The rule of Henderson v Henderson is a long-standing legal principle that requires a party to bring their entire case during the course of a single legal proceeding. 1 Another principle of law known as “res judicata” prevents any party re-litigating a matter that has previously been decided.
These two principles were discussed in the High Court decision of Muir, Bradbury, Peebles and Maud v Commissioner of Inland Revenue CIV-2011- 404-1132 [2015] NZHC 792 which included the following paragraph: Where a given matter becomes the subject of litigation in, and 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 matters 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. The plea of res judicata applies, except in special cases, not only to points upon which the court was actually required by the parties to form an opinion and pronounce a judgment, but to every point which properly belonged to the subject of litigation and which parties, exercising reasonable diligence, might have brought forward at the time. See Henderson v Henderson [1843] 3 Hare 100 Discussion
What this means is that an unsuccessful party cannot simply file a new application in the same jurisdiction, to address any deficiencies in their earlier claim. That would offend the principal of finality of litigation. If filing further applications was permitted, then conceivably there may be no end to claims being filed for the same dispute.
I note that this principle also means that the landlord may not file a new application in relation to this tenancy. That is because if a party fails to raise an argument that they could and should have raised in an earlier proceeding, they will generally not be allowed to do so in a subsequent proceeding. Litigation should not be undertaken by instalment. 2 1 Henderson v Henderson [1843] 3 Hare 100. 2 Shaw v Green & Centrepoint Ltd [2023] NZHC 605 at [45]. Conclusion
The landlord’s application is dismissed. Suppression
The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. See s 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Consistent with the order made on 18 February 2025, and because I too have determined there is no public interest in publishing the tenant’s names, I order that the tenant’s name be suppressed.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Background

The tenancy ended on 22 August 2024.
On 26 September 2024, the landlord filed an application seeking rent arrears (application 4984808).
On 27 November 2024, application 4984808 was adjourned to enable the landlord to file a rent summary.
On 18 February 2025, a hearing was held remotely for application 4984808. The tenant attended the remote hearing. The landlord did not.
By order dated 18 February 2025, application 4984808 was dismissed and an order was made that the tenant’s name not be published.
The landlord did not file an application for re-hearing, or appeal in relation to application 4984808.
On 7 March 2025, the landlord filed the present new application seeking rent arrears.
On 15 July 2025, a face-to-face hearing was held at Waitakere District Court.
The landlord attended. The tenant did not. Legal principles
The rule of Henderson v Henderson is a long-standing legal principle that requires a party to bring their entire case during the course of a single legal proceeding. 1 Another principle of law known as “res judicata” prevents any party re-litigating a matter that has previously been decided.
These two principles were discussed in the High Court decision of Muir, Bradbury, Peebles and Maud v Commissioner of Inland Revenue CIV-2011- 404-1132 [2015] NZHC 792 which included the following paragraph: Where a given matter becomes the subject of litigation in, and 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 matters 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. The plea of res judicata applies, except in special cases, not only to points upon which the court was actually required by the parties to form an opinion and pronounce a judgment, but to every point which properly belonged to the subject of litigation and which parties, exercising reasonable diligence, might have brought forward at the time. See Henderson v Henderson [1843] 3 Hare 100 Discussion
What this means is that an unsuccessful party cannot simply file a new application in the same jurisdiction, to address any deficiencies in their earlier claim. That would offend the principal of finality of litigation. If filing further applications was permitted, then conceivably there may be no end to claims being filed for the same dispute.
I note that this principle also means that the landlord may not file a new application in relation to this tenancy. That is because if a party fails to raise an argument that they could and should have raised in an earlier proceeding, they will generally not be allowed to do so in a subsequent proceeding. Litigation should not be undertaken by instalment. 2 1 Henderson v Henderson [1843] 3 Hare 100. 2 Shaw v Green & Centrepoint Ltd [2023] NZHC 605 at [45]. Conclusion
The landlord’s application is dismissed. Suppression
The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. See s 95A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Consistent with the order made on 18 February 2025, and because I too have determined there is no public interest in publishing the tenant’s names, I order that the tenant’s name be suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5190013 — Rent arrears at 62C Taylor Street, Blockhouse Bay, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5190013 — Rent arrears at 62C Taylor Street, Blockhouse Bay, Auckland 0600

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