What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5203371 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 5203371?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5203371?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5203371?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11887190-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5203371 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 5203371?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5203371?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5203371?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11887190-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

663 Chester Road, West Taratahi, RD 1, Carterton 5791 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5203371 — Rent arrears

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 application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears.
The tenant opposes the application as the Tribunal has previously dismissed the landlord’s claim for rent arrears by order dated 14 March 2025 (NZTT 4942474, 4983292). Relevant legal considerations
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. 1
The Tribunal may strike out, in whole or in part, a proceeding, if satisfied that it is otherwise an abuse of process. 2
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 3 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 4 which said: [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 authorities referred to by the Judge at [21] of his judgment (quoted above at [13]) are based on the Henderson v Henderson 1 See section 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 2 See section 92A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 3 Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100 4 Craig v Stringer [2020] NZCA 260 [26 June 2020] at para [16] – [19] principle. 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. (“footnotes omitted”) This case
What this all means is that an unsuccessful party cannot simply file another application in the same body, 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.
In this case, the landlord is seeking to relitigate a claim of rent arrears that formed part of their previous application. The claim was dismissed.
If the landlord considered that there was a procedural problem with the first hearing, then a rehearing application could have been filed, or if the landlord considered the decision was simply wrong, then they could have appealed to the District Court.
For these reasons the claim for rent arrears is dismissed.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am expressing no view as to whether the claim had any merit. Suppression
The tenant sought name suppression and as she has been successful in defending this claim I make an order suppressing her name.
The landlord did not seek name suppression.

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 application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing.
The landlord has applied for rent arrears.
The tenant opposes the application as the Tribunal has previously dismissed the landlord’s claim for rent arrears by order dated 14 March 2025 (NZTT 4942474, 4983292). Relevant legal considerations
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. 1
The Tribunal may strike out, in whole or in part, a proceeding, if satisfied that it is otherwise an abuse of process. 2
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 3 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 4 which said: [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 authorities referred to by the Judge at [21] of his judgment (quoted above at [13]) are based on the Henderson v Henderson 1 See section 85 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 2 See section 92A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 3 Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100 4 Craig v Stringer [2020] NZCA 260 [26 June 2020] at para [16] – [19] principle. 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. (“footnotes omitted”) This case
What this all means is that an unsuccessful party cannot simply file another application in the same body, 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.
In this case, the landlord is seeking to relitigate a claim of rent arrears that formed part of their previous application. The claim was dismissed.
If the landlord considered that there was a procedural problem with the first hearing, then a rehearing application could have been filed, or if the landlord considered the decision was simply wrong, then they could have appealed to the District Court.
For these reasons the claim for rent arrears is dismissed.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am expressing no view as to whether the claim had any merit. Suppression
The tenant sought name suppression and as she has been successful in defending this claim I make an order suppressing her name.
The landlord did not seek name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5203371 — Rent arrears at 663 Chester Road, West Taratahi, RD 1, Carterton 5791

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5203371 — Rent arrears at 663 Chester Road, West Taratahi, RD 1, Carterton 5791

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