What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5299896 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 5299896?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5299896?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5299896?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12399886-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5299896 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 5299896?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5299896?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5299896?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12399886-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5299896 — Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the [Tenant/Landlord] name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

[The landlord’s representative] attended the hearing on behalf of the landlord.
[The tenant/s], the tenant, attended the hearing. Introduction
[The tenant/s], the tenant, brought an application before the Tribunal seeking compensation for electricity charges, compensation for a non-functional rangehood, and a refund of the bond.
These issues have already been the subject of earlier proceedings under application 4934833, culminating in the Tribunal’s final order of 11 February 2025. [The tenant/s] filed a Notice of Appeal in the District Court dated 24 February 2025.
On 01 July 2025, His Honour Judge Dawson dismissed the appeal. History of previous hearings
On 8 October 2024, the Tribunal heard the landlord’s claim for rent arrears and advertising costs, together with the tenant’s set-off claims. The matter was adjourned for further evidence.
On 5 December 2024, the hearing was adjourned again at the tenant’s request, as he was attending to his wife in hospital.
On 11 February 2025, the Tribunal issued final orders. The bond was released to the landlord, the landlord’s rent arrears claim was upheld, and the tenant’s set-off claims were dismissed. The reason for dismissal was that the tenant did not attend and filed no further evidence.
On 24 February 2025, the tenant filed a Notice of Appeal to the District Court, challenging the Tribunal’s decision as unfair, reached in his absence, and failed to consider evidence concerning the rangehood, electricity charges, and harassment issues.
On 01 July 2025, Judge Dawson dismissed the tenant’s appeal. After reviewing the history of this file, as I have set out in paragraphs 6 to 9 above, Judge Dawson said at [9] and [10]: “[9] The appellant has not succeeded in this appeal, because there was no unfairness in the conduct of proceedings by the Tribunal. The tenant has been given every opportunity to provide evidence of the matters that he says are relevant but has failed to do so. [10] On that basis, no unfairness has been established by the appellant and this appeal is dismissed.” Principle of res judicata
The common law principle of res judicata binds the Tribunal. This principle provides that once a judicial tribunal with jurisdiction has determined an issue, it cannot be re-litigated between the same parties. As noted in Tribunal decision [2022] NZTT 4339198 at paragraph 18, citing the Butterworths definition: “In English law a res judicata is a decision pronounced by judicial tribunal having jurisdiction over the case and the parties which disposes once and for all of all the matters decided, so that except on appeal, they cannot afterwards be relitigated between the same parties or their privies.”
The same principle has been followed by the District Court at Gisborne in Flood v LJ Hooker Ltd CIV-2009-016-000248 (31 August 2009). In that case, the tenant sought to reopen matters previously dismissed by the Tribunal, relying on alleged “new evidence” and reframing the dispute against a different party. Judge Connell held that res judicata applied, describing it as an abuse of process to relitigate issues that could and should have been raised in the original proceedings.
Judge Connell further observed that the law imposes a positive obligation on litigants to bring forward their whole case at [6]: “Whenever a party against whom a judgment has been made has failed to raise some question he or she could have raised, the judgment includes a decision on the omitted question. This is because the law imposes a positive obligation on litigants to bring forward their whole case. The law will not hear a litigant to argue later that they have not argued their case carefully or inadvertently or by accident omitted part of their case. This has been the law for a considerable period of time and dates back to the leading case of Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100 at 114- 115. This may seem hard on litigants. But the reason for the law taking this approach is that there is a greater public interest in decisions being final. Otherwise litigation could go on and on and on. See Hoystead v Federal Taxation Commissioner [1926] AC 155, 165-166 (PC). It is common place at the end of a case for litigants and their advisers to reflect and think: well, perhaps it should have been argued another way”
In Flood, the Court also cited the long-standing rule in Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100, later restated by Sir Thomas Bingham MR in Barrow v Bankside Members Agency Limited [1996] 1 WLR 257 at 260 at [7]: “The rule in Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100 is very well known. It requires the parties, when a matter becomes the subject of litigation between them in a court of competent jurisdiction, to bring their whole case before the court so that all aspects of it may be finally decided (subject, of course, to any appeal) once and for all. In the absence of special circumstances, the parties cannot return to the court to advance arguments, claims or defences which they could have put forward for decision on the first occasion but failed to raise. The rule is not based on the doctrine of res judicata in a narrow sense, nor even on any strict doctrine of issue or cause of action estoppel. It is a rule of public policy based on the desirability, in the general interest as well as that of the parties themselves, that litigation should not drag on forever and that a defendant should not be oppressed by successive suits when one would do. That is the abuse at which the rule is directed.”
Applying these principles, [The tenant/s] current application cannot succeed. The same claims concerning electricity charges, the rangehood, and the bond were advanced under [2025] NZTT 4934833 and dismissed by final order on 11 February 2025. He then exercised his right of appeal to the District Court. That appeal was the correct and only forum for reconsideration of the issues.
Following the appeal, His Honour Judge Dawson dismissed the appeal because there was “no unfairness has been established...”. Abuse of process and cost
I explained to [The tenant/s] that I do not have the power to reopen or rehear matters that have already been determined and dismissed on appeal. The effect of bringing the present application is to attempt to relitigate issues that have already been finally determined.
I drew the tenant’s attention to section 92A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). That section empowers the Tribunal to strike out a proceeding if it considers the proceeding to be an abuse of process. In. my view, re-litigating issues already determined and dismissed on appeal falls squarely within that category.
I emphasised to [The tenant/s] that if he were to continue filing applications seeking to reopen matters already decided, the Tribunal would be entitled to strike out those proceedings under section 92A RTA. In addition, costs may be awarded against him if the Tribunal finds that he is abusing the process.
I am not exercising the power to strike out under section 92A(d) of the RTA in this instance, nor am I awarding costs. This is the tenant’s first fresh application following his appeal, and I accept that, as a layperson, he may not have appreciated the consequences.
However, I cautioned [The tenant/s] that he must now accept the outcome of the earlier proceedings. If he attempts to relitigate these same matters again, the Tribunal will almost certainly strike out the proceeding under section 92A and award costs against him. Conclusion
Accordingly, I do not have the jurisdiction to reconsider claims already determined by a final order. [The tenant/s] present application is an impermissible attempt to relitigate matters that have now come to an end.
Consequently, I must dismiss the application. Name suppression
[The tenant/s] explained that he was unable to attend the Tribunal hearings due to a series of personal and family emergencies. At the time of the November 2024 hearing, his wife was pregnant and experiencing serious complications. She was hospitalised, and later required an emergency delivery at 29 weeks. This placed him under significant stress and made it impossible for him to focus on the proceedings.
He also stated that in December 2024, during the Christmas period, his wife remained in hospital and his attention was entirely on her care and recovery. Shortly afterwards, in early 2025, his father overseas became ill. [The tenant/s] travelled to be with his family, which meant he was out of the country at the time of the February 2025 hearing.
[The tenant/s] emphasised that because of these exceptional circumstances, he missed the opportunity to file documents and attend the hearings. He later obtained invoices for the electricity charges from his provider, but by that stage the Tribunal had already issued its final decision.
Taking into account the circumstances [The tenant/s] was in, I have formed the view that it is not in the public interest to publish his name or any identifying details. An order is made accordingly.
I note that the Tribunal ordered name suppression for both parties on 11 February 2025. I also suppress the landlord’s name and identifying details, as there is no public interest in publishing the landlord’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5299896 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5299896 — Rent arrears

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