What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5302897 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application is struck out pursuant to section 92A Residential

How much money was awarded in case 5302897?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5302897?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5302897?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12391292-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5302897 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application is struck out pursuant to section 92A Residential

How much money was awarded in case 5302897?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5302897?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5302897?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12391292-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

58 Grimseys Road, Redwood, Christchurch 8051 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5302897 — Cleanliness

Order

The landlord’s application is struck out pursuant to section 92A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Reasons

The landlord has made an application on 10 July 2025 for the costs of cleaning, repairs and an administration fee.
The parties previously appeared before the Tribunal in relation to this tenancy which ended on 28 March 2025. Order 5234132 was made on 13 June 2025 by the consent of the parties and the bond was paid out based on their agreement.
That Order recorded: “2. The parties agreed to a resolution of the dispute. I have made a consent order based on the agreement they reached.
This order is in full and final settlement of all matters raised in the application.”
The landlord filed an application for a re-hearing out of time on 3 July 2025 claiming the same amounts as are in the present application.
The learned Adjudicator declined the re-hearing application on 4 July 2025 for the following reasons: “10. Both parties attended the hearing. The parties reached their own agreement. I explained the effect of a consent order. The parties agreed that the Tribunal’s order, based on the agreement they reached, was in full and final settlement of all matters raised in the application. There were no procedural flaws.
That the landlord has had a change of mind or believes that the tenants had agreed to other matters that were not raised at the hearing, does not establish grounds for a rehearing. Nor can the landlord now seek to include other costs such as administrative costs.”
Under section 92A residential Tenancies Act 1986, the Tribunal has power to strike out a proceeding if it is satisfied that it discloses no reasonable cause of action or is an abuse of process.
The landlord’s further application for further costs relating to this tenancy is an attempt to re-open and relitigate a matter that has already been determined by the Tribunal. These matters are res judicata and the landlord is estopped from bringing further proceedings arising from this tenancy which were settled finally and sealed by the order of the Tribunal.
It is also noted that the amounts being claimed relate to an invoice dated 8 April 2025 and a quote dated 9 April 2025, both dates well before the date of the Tribunal hearing and which the landlord also applied to have reconsidered as part of its re-hearing application.
The case of Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100 explains the relevant principle of law deriving from the concept of res judicata or from the power of the court to prevent abuse of its process: “... where 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 a matter which might have been brought forward as part of the subject in contest, but which was not brough forward, only because they have, from negligence, inadvertence, or even accident omitted part of their case. The plea of res judicata applies except in special cases, not only to points upon which the Court was actually required by the parties to form an opinion and pronounce a judgement, but to every point which properly belonged to the subject of the litigation, and which the parties, exercising reasonable diligence, might have brought forward at the time.”
In simple terms, absent special circumstances, a litigant gets one chance in bringing their case, and when they do so they must bring all of the available arguments and claims forward.
To allow the applicant to revisit aspects of the first Tribunal decision is an abuse of the court’s process. The appellants had the opportunity to bring their claims in the course of the initial proceedings but did not do so. As set out in Henderson, it does not matter whether that was through choice or inadvertence.
A party cannot simply file another application to the same Tribunal or Court, 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.
For these reasons, the landlord’s application is struck out.

Order

The landlord’s application is struck out pursuant to section 92A Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Reasons

The landlord has made an application on 10 July 2025 for the costs of cleaning, repairs and an administration fee.
The parties previously appeared before the Tribunal in relation to this tenancy which ended on 28 March 2025. Order 5234132 was made on 13 June 2025 by the consent of the parties and the bond was paid out based on their agreement.
That Order recorded: “2. The parties agreed to a resolution of the dispute. I have made a consent order based on the agreement they reached.
This order is in full and final settlement of all matters raised in the application.”
The landlord filed an application for a re-hearing out of time on 3 July 2025 claiming the same amounts as are in the present application.
The learned Adjudicator declined the re-hearing application on 4 July 2025 for the following reasons: “10. Both parties attended the hearing. The parties reached their own agreement. I explained the effect of a consent order. The parties agreed that the Tribunal’s order, based on the agreement they reached, was in full and final settlement of all matters raised in the application. There were no procedural flaws.
That the landlord has had a change of mind or believes that the tenants had agreed to other matters that were not raised at the hearing, does not establish grounds for a rehearing. Nor can the landlord now seek to include other costs such as administrative costs.”
Under section 92A residential Tenancies Act 1986, the Tribunal has power to strike out a proceeding if it is satisfied that it discloses no reasonable cause of action or is an abuse of process.
The landlord’s further application for further costs relating to this tenancy is an attempt to re-open and relitigate a matter that has already been determined by the Tribunal. These matters are res judicata and the landlord is estopped from bringing further proceedings arising from this tenancy which were settled finally and sealed by the order of the Tribunal.
It is also noted that the amounts being claimed relate to an invoice dated 8 April 2025 and a quote dated 9 April 2025, both dates well before the date of the Tribunal hearing and which the landlord also applied to have reconsidered as part of its re-hearing application.
The case of Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100 explains the relevant principle of law deriving from the concept of res judicata or from the power of the court to prevent abuse of its process: “... where 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 a matter which might have been brought forward as part of the subject in contest, but which was not brough forward, only because they have, from negligence, inadvertence, or even accident omitted part of their case. The plea of res judicata applies except in special cases, not only to points upon which the Court was actually required by the parties to form an opinion and pronounce a judgement, but to every point which properly belonged to the subject of the litigation, and which the parties, exercising reasonable diligence, might have brought forward at the time.”
In simple terms, absent special circumstances, a litigant gets one chance in bringing their case, and when they do so they must bring all of the available arguments and claims forward.
To allow the applicant to revisit aspects of the first Tribunal decision is an abuse of the court’s process. The appellants had the opportunity to bring their claims in the course of the initial proceedings but did not do so. As set out in Henderson, it does not matter whether that was through choice or inadvertence.
A party cannot simply file another application to the same Tribunal or Court, 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.
For these reasons, the landlord’s application is struck out.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5302897 — Cleanliness at 58 Grimseys Road, Redwood, Christchurch 8051

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5302897 — Cleanliness at 58 Grimseys Road, Redwood, Christchurch 8051

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions