What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5245572 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names.

How much money was awarded in case 5245572?

Tenant Costs 3 December 2025: $63.75 awarded to tenant; Tenant Costs 3 October 2025: $127.50 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5245572?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5245572?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12824626-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5245572 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names.

How much money was awarded in case 5245572?

Tenant Costs 3 December 2025: $63.75 awarded to tenant; Tenant Costs 3 October 2025: $127.50 awarded to tenant

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5245572?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5245572?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12824626-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

38 Morere Street, Titahi Bay, Porirua 5022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5245572 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5245572 — net $191.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Tenant costs 3 October 2025	$127.50	Tenant costs 3 October 2025
Tenant costs 3 December 2025	$63.75	Tenant costs 3 December 2025
Net award	$191.25
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$191.25

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to the tenants immediately.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.
Don Day must pay the tenant costs of $191.25 immediately. DescriptionTenant Tenant costs 3 October 2025 $127.50 Tenant costs 3 December 2025 $63.75 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $191.25

Reasons

Hearing attendance on 3 December.

The applicant did not attend the hearing at the scheduled time.
The tenants and the court appointed interpreter did attend the hearing.
A witness for the applicant appeared. He stated that he was at the court to be a witness and to lodge an appeal on behalf of the applicant. Application dismissed.
Section 92(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that where notice of a hearing has been given to a party in accordance with section 91 and that party does not attend at the hearing, the Tribunal may dismiss the matter in the absence of that party.
In summary, three hearings have been scheduled for this case. The first hearing was adjourned because the applicant was unavailable. Two further hearing dates have been scheduled for the parties to appear at the Porirua District Court but the applicant has not appeared for either hearing.
The history regarding the scheduling of hearings at Porirua District Court is as follows. The landlord’s application was lodged on 27 April 2025. Tenancy Services ‘notes’ record a request from a person named Ke Sun, on 27 April. ‘will require a teleconference as not based in wellington and will be overseas damage to property see attached summary UNABLE TO ATTACH cleaning and rubbish 38 Morere photos 68Gb , repairing photos 38 morere 22Gb please allow your system to upload file we are also may want to file a couple of other document’
There were some issues with the landlord’s application. Tenancy Services followed up those issues and then triaged the case for a face to face hearing at Porirua Court. The Notice of Hearing for 30 May was sent to the parties on 15 May.
An email from ingleburndevelopments@yahoo.co.uk was received by Tenancy Services on 23 May. The person did not identify himself/herself. The email reads; ‘In respect of this hearing as per my application we require the hearing to be by teleconference as we are not based in Wellington’. Porirua Court messaged me the request for a teleconference hearing. I considered the request by viewing the landlord’s application and documents that accompanied the application. I also took account of the fact that the landlord intended producing 68Gb of cleaning and rubbish photos, 22Gb of repairs photos and other documents. I determined that the case should remain an ‘in person’ hearing at Porirua District Court.
On 26 May, Tenancy Services emailed ingleburndevelopments@yahoo.co.uk as follows; “The applicant is to appear in person. The claim is sufficiently detailed that the parties are to be present at the hearing.” The next day ingleburndevelopments@yahoo.co.uk emailed Tenancy Services. ‘unfortunately we are unable to attend. Sun Ke can attend on our behalf however he can only provide limited information. Donald will need to be able to participate via teleconference. If facilities are not available for him a miscarriage of justice will most likely occur.’ This was followed by an email 10 minutes late stating, ‘I request that if the hearing can not be held by teleconference that it is rescheduled to when it can be held by teleconference Donald does not reside in Wellington and is not able to travel "to avoid a gross miscarriage of justice"’
On 28 May I instructed that the hearing be rescheduled to a date when Don Day could appear at the hearing in person, adding that it is the owner's choice to appoint an agent living in Auckland for a property located in Wellington.
The next hearing was scheduled for 3 October. At 5:32pm on 2 October ingleburndevelopments@yahoo.co.uk emailed Porirua District Court and Don Day as follows: Apologies but I am currently convalescing with a virus Covid I am advised to stay away from people as I am positive and do not want to infect anyone can we reschedule the hear to latter next week.
This was followed by a further email at 6:52pm to the Porirua District Court and to Don Day from ingleburndevelopments@yahoo.co.uk Ke Sun will be there at 9.30 The whole family had covid
These emails were received after the Court closed on Tuesday. I became aware of the emails on Wednesday shortly before the hearing.
The landlord did not appear at the hearing on 3 October. Mr Ke Sun appeared. He provided an email he had received from Don Day Donday121@gmx.com the previous day at 8:17pm stating he was authorised to act for Don Day. The Tribunal had not granted representation for the landlord at the hearing. At the hearing on 3 October Ke Sun indicated that he had limited knowledge of case and a teleconference to Don Day would be required. Mr Sun said he had never met Don Day or the person using the ingleburndevelopments@yahoo.co.uk email. The tenants have not met the applicant or received emails from ingleburndevelopments@yahoo.co.uk .
I adjourned the case on 3 October to give the landlord or the landlord’s agent a further opportunity to appear at Porirua District Court. I noted that usually where a party does not appear to present their case the application is dismissed. However I adjourned and gave a further opportunity for the applicant or landlord to attend because the person behind the emails sent from ingleburndevelopments@yahoo.co.uk appeared to have intended to attend the hearing, but for the Covid virus. I advised that because the Tribunal had provided the applicant with an additional opportunity to present their case the claim would be dismissed if the applicant did not appear. On 3 November the applicant did not appear. The application is therefore dismissed. The tenants’ bond is to be paid to them from the Bond Centre.

Do the tenants dispute the claims?

I considered whether any orders could be made regarding matters raised in the landlord’s application. I checked with the tenants whether they accepted liability for any matter raised in the landlord’s claim. The tenants attended the hearing because they dispute liability for all claims made by the landlord. If the tenants had agreed to any loss claimed by the landlord I would have ordered payment to the landlord from the bond for that loss. Costs
In the Tribunal order dated 3 October 2025 the landlord was advised that the tenants had requested costs, and that the Tribunal can order a party to pay reasonable costs to the other party where the applicant has failed to attend the hearing without reasonable excuse. See section 102(3)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I have awarded the tenants reasonable costs for the following reason. Both tenants appeared at two hearings where an applicant has not appeared. The tenant requested the wages she would have received. Her husband works full time but did not request compensation.
Regarding the amount ordered, the tenant’s employer confirmed in writing that the tenant earns $25.00 per hour and was scheduled to work 8.5 hours on 3 October. She was not able to work on 3 October after the hearing concluded. The tenant also had the opportunity to work on 3 November. I have allowed costs of 60% of the tenant’s shift on 3 October and half that amount for today’s hearing totalling $191.25. Suppression
The Tribunal may, 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. (s.95A(4). I have granted name suppression for the tenants. There was no claim proved against them and there is no public interest in having their names published.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5245572 — net $191.25 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Tenant	Reason
Tenant costs 3 October 2025	$127.50	Tenant costs 3 October 2025
Tenant costs 3 December 2025	$63.75	Tenant costs 3 December 2025
Net award	$191.25
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant	$191.25

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ names.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,000.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to the tenants immediately.
The landlord’s application is dismissed.
Don Day must pay the tenant costs of $191.25 immediately. DescriptionTenant Tenant costs 3 October 2025 $127.50 Tenant costs 3 December 2025 $63.75 Total payable by Landlord to Tenant $191.25

Reasons

Hearing attendance on 3 December.

The applicant did not attend the hearing at the scheduled time.
The tenants and the court appointed interpreter did attend the hearing.
A witness for the applicant appeared. He stated that he was at the court to be a witness and to lodge an appeal on behalf of the applicant. Application dismissed.
Section 92(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that where notice of a hearing has been given to a party in accordance with section 91 and that party does not attend at the hearing, the Tribunal may dismiss the matter in the absence of that party.
In summary, three hearings have been scheduled for this case. The first hearing was adjourned because the applicant was unavailable. Two further hearing dates have been scheduled for the parties to appear at the Porirua District Court but the applicant has not appeared for either hearing.
The history regarding the scheduling of hearings at Porirua District Court is as follows. The landlord’s application was lodged on 27 April 2025. Tenancy Services ‘notes’ record a request from a person named Ke Sun, on 27 April. ‘will require a teleconference as not based in wellington and will be overseas damage to property see attached summary UNABLE TO ATTACH cleaning and rubbish 38 Morere photos 68Gb , repairing photos 38 morere 22Gb please allow your system to upload file we are also may want to file a couple of other document’
There were some issues with the landlord’s application. Tenancy Services followed up those issues and then triaged the case for a face to face hearing at Porirua Court. The Notice of Hearing for 30 May was sent to the parties on 15 May.
An email from ingleburndevelopments@yahoo.co.uk was received by Tenancy Services on 23 May. The person did not identify himself/herself. The email reads; ‘In respect of this hearing as per my application we require the hearing to be by teleconference as we are not based in Wellington’. Porirua Court messaged me the request for a teleconference hearing. I considered the request by viewing the landlord’s application and documents that accompanied the application. I also took account of the fact that the landlord intended producing 68Gb of cleaning and rubbish photos, 22Gb of repairs photos and other documents. I determined that the case should remain an ‘in person’ hearing at Porirua District Court.
On 26 May, Tenancy Services emailed ingleburndevelopments@yahoo.co.uk as follows; “The applicant is to appear in person. The claim is sufficiently detailed that the parties are to be present at the hearing.” The next day ingleburndevelopments@yahoo.co.uk emailed Tenancy Services. ‘unfortunately we are unable to attend. Sun Ke can attend on our behalf however he can only provide limited information. Donald will need to be able to participate via teleconference. If facilities are not available for him a miscarriage of justice will most likely occur.’ This was followed by an email 10 minutes late stating, ‘I request that if the hearing can not be held by teleconference that it is rescheduled to when it can be held by teleconference Donald does not reside in Wellington and is not able to travel "to avoid a gross miscarriage of justice"’
On 28 May I instructed that the hearing be rescheduled to a date when Don Day could appear at the hearing in person, adding that it is the owner's choice to appoint an agent living in Auckland for a property located in Wellington.
The next hearing was scheduled for 3 October. At 5:32pm on 2 October ingleburndevelopments@yahoo.co.uk emailed Porirua District Court and Don Day as follows: Apologies but I am currently convalescing with a virus Covid I am advised to stay away from people as I am positive and do not want to infect anyone can we reschedule the hear to latter next week.
This was followed by a further email at 6:52pm to the Porirua District Court and to Don Day from ingleburndevelopments@yahoo.co.uk Ke Sun will be there at 9.30 The whole family had covid
These emails were received after the Court closed on Tuesday. I became aware of the emails on Wednesday shortly before the hearing.
The landlord did not appear at the hearing on 3 October. Mr Ke Sun appeared. He provided an email he had received from Don Day Donday121@gmx.com the previous day at 8:17pm stating he was authorised to act for Don Day. The Tribunal had not granted representation for the landlord at the hearing. At the hearing on 3 October Ke Sun indicated that he had limited knowledge of case and a teleconference to Don Day would be required. Mr Sun said he had never met Don Day or the person using the ingleburndevelopments@yahoo.co.uk email. The tenants have not met the applicant or received emails from ingleburndevelopments@yahoo.co.uk .
I adjourned the case on 3 October to give the landlord or the landlord’s agent a further opportunity to appear at Porirua District Court. I noted that usually where a party does not appear to present their case the application is dismissed. However I adjourned and gave a further opportunity for the applicant or landlord to attend because the person behind the emails sent from ingleburndevelopments@yahoo.co.uk appeared to have intended to attend the hearing, but for the Covid virus. I advised that because the Tribunal had provided the applicant with an additional opportunity to present their case the claim would be dismissed if the applicant did not appear. On 3 November the applicant did not appear. The application is therefore dismissed. The tenants’ bond is to be paid to them from the Bond Centre.

Do the tenants dispute the claims?

I considered whether any orders could be made regarding matters raised in the landlord’s application. I checked with the tenants whether they accepted liability for any matter raised in the landlord’s claim. The tenants attended the hearing because they dispute liability for all claims made by the landlord. If the tenants had agreed to any loss claimed by the landlord I would have ordered payment to the landlord from the bond for that loss. Costs
In the Tribunal order dated 3 October 2025 the landlord was advised that the tenants had requested costs, and that the Tribunal can order a party to pay reasonable costs to the other party where the applicant has failed to attend the hearing without reasonable excuse. See section 102(3)(b) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
I have awarded the tenants reasonable costs for the following reason. Both tenants appeared at two hearings where an applicant has not appeared. The tenant requested the wages she would have received. Her husband works full time but did not request compensation.
Regarding the amount ordered, the tenant’s employer confirmed in writing that the tenant earns $25.00 per hour and was scheduled to work 8.5 hours on 3 October. She was not able to work on 3 October after the hearing concluded. The tenant also had the opportunity to work on 3 November. I have allowed costs of 60% of the tenant’s shift on 3 October and half that amount for today’s hearing totalling $191.25. Suppression
The Tribunal may, 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. (s.95A(4). I have granted name suppression for the tenants. There was no claim proved against them and there is no public interest in having their names published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5245572 — Tenancy dispute at 38 Morere Street, Titahi Bay, Porirua 5022

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5245572 — Tenancy dispute at 38 Morere Street, Titahi Bay, Porirua 5022

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Do the tenants dispute the claims?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Do the tenants dispute the claims?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions