What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5286939 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 5286939?

Legal Costs: $6,097.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5286939?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5286939?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12334086-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5286939 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 5286939?

Legal Costs: $6,097.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5286939?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5286939?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12334086-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

1245 Teviot Road, Teviot, RD 2, Roxburgh 9572, Onslow Tenancy Tribunal Case 5286939 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5286939. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
he application by the landlord for legal costs, rent in lieu of notice, insurance costs and property managers costs tota	$6,097.44		he application by the landlord for legal costs, rent in lieu of notice, insurance costs and property managers costs tota

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone, the tenant with her lawyer Mr O’Brien.

The landlord claims the following: a. $2,012.50 legal costs from March 2025, b. $1,698.75 legal costs between 5/10 and 19/12/2023, c. $1,176.76 being 28 days rent in lieu of notice, d. $855.43 insurance premium costs, e. $354.00 property managers inspection costs.

There have been six Tenancy Tribunal Orders between the parties for this tenancy by three different adjudicators between December 2023 and March 2025 and a case conference minute by another adjudicator in November 2023.

Does the tenant owe rent in lieu of notice?

The landlord seeks 28 days rent in lieu of notice amounting to $1,176.76.

By Order of the Tribunal dated 26 August 2024 Adjudicator Young determined, among other matters, that the tenant owed rent arrears of $590.00 to 25/1/2024.

The landlord submitted that the although the adjudicator confirmed the tenant had not given 28 days notice as was required then, she was told he could not deal with the issue of rent in lieu of notice because she had not made any claim for that matter.

In response, the lawyer for the tenant submitted that the matter of rent arrears had already been dealt with and the landlord was unable to re-litigate the issue based on the principle of res judicata in Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100.

The lawyer suggested it was an abuse of process for the landlord to now seek rent in lieu of notice.

Res judicata is based on the underlying public interest that there should be finality in litigation, that is the same matter should not be brought twice.

The claims dealt with by the Tribunal in August 2024 were about rent arrears and compensation for damage and storage.

If the landlord was, as she suggests, not able to pursue the matter of rent in lieu of notice it was open to her to seek an adjournment to amend the claim, apply for a rehearing or immediately make a further claim.

I consider the issue of rent has been determined and it is an abuse of process for the landlord to seek further rent 19 months after the tenancy ended and twelve months after the Tribunal decision in August 2024.

The claim for 28 days rent in lieu of notice fails.

Is the landlord entitled to compensation for costs?

The landlord seeks legal costs for her dispute with the tenant about ending the tenancy, the state of the premises, and retaliatory notice between October and December 2023 and whether the premises were an unlawful residential tenancy in March 2025.

The landlord was unhappy that the tenant had consulted a lawyer, which meant she felt she needed to do so as well.

The lawyer for the tenant submitted that it was the tenant who made a claim about retaliatory notice which was determined on 12/12/2023. As the tenant was successful in those proceedings there was no basis to award costs to the landlord.

Further the lawyer submitted that the costs for the March 2025 decision were out of time because no claim was made at the hearing or within the recognised 14 day period following the hearing.

It is not usual for the Tribunal to award costs.

However, under section 102 the Tribunal can award costs in certain circumstances, one of which is if any of the parties are represented by counsel.

I am persuaded by the submission that the claim for costs in March 2025 is out of time. At the hearing the tenant’s lawyer appeared but the landlord’s lawyer did not, rather he provided written submissions the day before the hearing.

At clause 14 of the decision of the Tribunal dated 19 March 2025 the Tribunal declined to hear the counterclaim for costs filed the day before the hearing by the landlord’s lawyer, because no application was filed under section 86.

It was not until three months after the hearing, on 13/6/2025 that the landlord filed the claim for costs.

I do not consider it reasonable to look at an award of legal costs given the time delay and the fact that the need for an application was noted in the March 2025 decision.

The landlord also claimed insurance and property management costs due to what the landlord believed was the tenant’s refusal of entry leading to an inability to undertake three monthly inspections which affected her insurance.

On the other hand, the tenant’s lawyer submitted that the claims about access had already been litigated and no costs had previously been sought.

The renting of premises is a business which comes with associated costs, such as insurance and property management fees.

Such costs are not recoverable from a tenant in the circumstances outlined by the landlord.

Rather the legislation contains provisions for any alleged breaches by either party.

The claim for legal costs, insurance and property management costs fails.

No filing fee is awarded because the landlord was unsuccessful.

Suppression is granted to the tenant pursuant to section 95A because she wholly succeeded in the proceedings.

No suppression is available to the landlord because she was not successful in the proceedings.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5286939. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
he application by the landlord for legal costs, rent in lieu of notice, insurance costs and property managers costs tota	$6,097.44		he application by the landlord for legal costs, rent in lieu of notice, insurance costs and property managers costs tota