What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5256650 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 5256650?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5256650?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5256650?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12461328-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5256650 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 5256650?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5256650?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5256650?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12461328-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5256650 — Healthy homes

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ and Landlord’s name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended both hearings.
[The tenant/s] and her husband were share milkers and held the tenancy as a service tenancy through the share milking contract.
A dispute arose relating to the share milking contract, and the parties went through a mediation process. Following on from the mediation process [The tenant/s] has bought her application, which is largely about the condition of the property, and whether it complied with healthy homes standards. The mediation agreement
As a preliminary matter I must consider whether any aspects of the disputes between the parties were captured by the mediation agreement. The law is that parties will be kept to any agreements they reach to settle a dispute.
The exceptions to this are where a dispute arises about the meaning of a term of the agreement, where there is a shared mistake which makes the agreement invalid or where the agreement is brought about by duress or unconscionable behaviour. 1
[The tenant/s] says the mediation agreement should be put aside as she was pressured into agreement, was not allowed to discuss the Healthy Homes issues, and as the mediator was not neutral. However, both parties were represented by lawyers, and there is no evidence of any duress or unconscionability. There is also no evidence of a shared mistake which would meet the definition in s23 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017.
The mediation agreement records: A dispute has arisen between the parties regarding the validity or otherwise of the [contract milking agreement], the [landlord’s] breaches of their obligations under the [contract milking agreement] and the [tenants’] breaches of their obligations under the [contract milking agreement]. (Dispute)... The [landlord] shall pay [the tenants’ lawyers] the sum of $5000 in full and final settlement [of] the Dispute...
The subject matter of the agreement included tenancy issues, as the agreement specifically refers to “the accommodation”, specifically in terms of the settlement funds being held in trust until the tenancy had been inspected. Clause 4 of the agreement records: [T]he settlement sum shall be released to the [tenants] immediately upon confirmation from the [landlord] that the farm and the Accommodation have passed inspection.
The question for me is whether the tenancy issues between the parties fall within the “Dispute” as defined in the agreement. If so, those matters are resolved, and it is not open to the parties to reopen the before the Tribunal.
I need to consider the matters which were in dispute as these provide the context in which the mediation agreement was formed. When interpreting a contract, the aim is to determine the objective intentions of the parties 2 , using the words in the contract viewed in the context in which the agreement was formed. Evidence of prior communications between the parties may be used where it provides material which allows for the parties’ objective intentions to be assessed. 3
The relevant material and events were: a. On 10 February 2025, a meeting between the parties was facilitated by the rural support trust. The minutes of this meeting record that the healthy homes issue was raised, and that the tenants were considering whether to bring the matter to the Tribunal. 1 See Prattley Enterprises v Vero [2015] NZHC 1444 2 The parties’ subjective intentions should not be considered as that would make contracts uncertain and unenforceable. 3 See Bathurst Resources Ltd v L & M Coal Holdings Ltd [2021] NZSC 85 b. On 11 February 2025, the landlord sent an email arranging a healthy homes assessment. c. On 24 February 2025, the healthy homes assessment occurred. d. On 25 February 2025, the healthy homes assessment report was produced. It highlights a number of issues where the tenancy was non-compliant including droughts, drainage, insulation, and heat source e. On 16 March 2025, the landlord referred to making a counterclaim against attendance in an email. f. The mediation occurred on 7 March 2025.
I note that: a. the tenancy is a service tenancy that was established under the contract milking agreement; b. the breaches alleged relating to the contract milking agreement included tenancy issues; c. the issues relating to the healthy homes and maintenance were clearly in discussion between the parties before the mediation; and d. the reference to issues relating to “the accommodation”, clearly indicate that tenancy issues were discussed and agreed during the mediation, as does the clause relating to the inspection of the tenancy.
[The tenant/s] says she was prevented from discussing healthy homes issues during the mediation. However, is clear that the settlement agreement captured all issues relating to the tenancy but for those issues clawback under clause 4.
This means that [The tenant/s]’s claim was resolved by the mediation agreement and cannot be reopened. Therefore, I must dismiss her claim.
I note that the funds held in trust have been withheld from being released as there are allegations of damage to the tenancy. However, there is no application by the landlord for this matter to be considered by the Tribunal.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenants’ and Landlord’s name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended both hearings.
[The tenant/s] and her husband were share milkers and held the tenancy as a service tenancy through the share milking contract.
A dispute arose relating to the share milking contract, and the parties went through a mediation process. Following on from the mediation process [The tenant/s] has bought her application, which is largely about the condition of the property, and whether it complied with healthy homes standards. The mediation agreement
As a preliminary matter I must consider whether any aspects of the disputes between the parties were captured by the mediation agreement. The law is that parties will be kept to any agreements they reach to settle a dispute.
The exceptions to this are where a dispute arises about the meaning of a term of the agreement, where there is a shared mistake which makes the agreement invalid or where the agreement is brought about by duress or unconscionable behaviour. 1
[The tenant/s] says the mediation agreement should be put aside as she was pressured into agreement, was not allowed to discuss the Healthy Homes issues, and as the mediator was not neutral. However, both parties were represented by lawyers, and there is no evidence of any duress or unconscionability. There is also no evidence of a shared mistake which would meet the definition in s23 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017.
The mediation agreement records: A dispute has arisen between the parties regarding the validity or otherwise of the [contract milking agreement], the [landlord’s] breaches of their obligations under the [contract milking agreement] and the [tenants’] breaches of their obligations under the [contract milking agreement]. (Dispute)... The [landlord] shall pay [the tenants’ lawyers] the sum of $5000 in full and final settlement [of] the Dispute...
The subject matter of the agreement included tenancy issues, as the agreement specifically refers to “the accommodation”, specifically in terms of the settlement funds being held in trust until the tenancy had been inspected. Clause 4 of the agreement records: [T]he settlement sum shall be released to the [tenants] immediately upon confirmation from the [landlord] that the farm and the Accommodation have passed inspection.
The question for me is whether the tenancy issues between the parties fall within the “Dispute” as defined in the agreement. If so, those matters are resolved, and it is not open to the parties to reopen the before the Tribunal.
I need to consider the matters which were in dispute as these provide the context in which the mediation agreement was formed. When interpreting a contract, the aim is to determine the objective intentions of the parties 2 , using the words in the contract viewed in the context in which the agreement was formed. Evidence of prior communications between the parties may be used where it provides material which allows for the parties’ objective intentions to be assessed. 3
The relevant material and events were: a. On 10 February 2025, a meeting between the parties was facilitated by the rural support trust. The minutes of this meeting record that the healthy homes issue was raised, and that the tenants were considering whether to bring the matter to the Tribunal. 1 See Prattley Enterprises v Vero [2015] NZHC 1444 2 The parties’ subjective intentions should not be considered as that would make contracts uncertain and unenforceable. 3 See Bathurst Resources Ltd v L & M Coal Holdings Ltd [2021] NZSC 85 b. On 11 February 2025, the landlord sent an email arranging a healthy homes assessment. c. On 24 February 2025, the healthy homes assessment occurred. d. On 25 February 2025, the healthy homes assessment report was produced. It highlights a number of issues where the tenancy was non-compliant including droughts, drainage, insulation, and heat source e. On 16 March 2025, the landlord referred to making a counterclaim against attendance in an email. f. The mediation occurred on 7 March 2025.
I note that: a. the tenancy is a service tenancy that was established under the contract milking agreement; b. the breaches alleged relating to the contract milking agreement included tenancy issues; c. the issues relating to the healthy homes and maintenance were clearly in discussion between the parties before the mediation; and d. the reference to issues relating to “the accommodation”, clearly indicate that tenancy issues were discussed and agreed during the mediation, as does the clause relating to the inspection of the tenancy.
[The tenant/s] says she was prevented from discussing healthy homes issues during the mediation. However, is clear that the settlement agreement captured all issues relating to the tenancy but for those issues clawback under clause 4.
This means that [The tenant/s]’s claim was resolved by the mediation agreement and cannot be reopened. Therefore, I must dismiss her claim.
I note that the funds held in trust have been withheld from being released as there are allegations of damage to the tenancy. However, there is no application by the landlord for this matter to be considered by the Tribunal.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5256650 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5256650 — Healthy homes

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