What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5305339 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 5305339?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $102.35 awarded to landlord; Curtain String: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5305339?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5305339?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12420914-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5305339 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 5305339?

Cleaning: $300.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $102.35 awarded to landlord; Curtain String: $115.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $300.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5305339?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5305339?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12420914-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5305339 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5305339 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5305339 — net $845.35 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$300.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$102.35	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: Wall/ door/frame repair	$300.00	Repairs: Wall/ door/frame repair
Repairs: Curtain string	$115.00	Repairs: Curtain string
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$845.35
Bond	$845.35
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$845.35

Claims and awards for application 5305339 — net $845.35 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Cleaning

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Lawns and Garden work

Amount: $102.35
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns and Garden work

Repairs: Wall/ door/frame repair

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Wall/ door/frame repair

Repairs: Curtain string

Amount: $115.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Curtain string

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Dismissed claims

Property Damage — LANDLORD EXPENSES
Section 44A Expenses

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Lawns And Garden Work Property damage

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Stedmann Fifita to pay [The landlord/s] $845.35 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $845.35 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by video call.
The tenant was telephoned on the phone number provided but the phone call went unanswered. I am satisfied the tenant was properly served with the application and notice of the hearing by email. The hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation, payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Evidential burden
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations: a. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. b. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden. c. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... “[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” Compensation
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities under the RTA. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party. TENANT’S OBLIGATIONS
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must: a. remove all his or her goods from the premises, 2 b. leave the premises (including the land provided with the premises) reasonably clean and tidy, and 3 c. remove all rubbish. 4
When considering a claim for cleaning the following principles generally apply: a. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean. b. The Tribunal will also consider factors such as the length of the tenancy, and the general condition of the premises (for example, surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly with paint work). c. Reasonably clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 5 d. Reasonably clean does not mean commercially clean. 6 e. Reasonably clean does not mean spotless to a hotel or motel standard. 7 1 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 2 See section 40 (1)(e) (ii) of the RTA. 3 See section 40 (1)(e) (iii) of the RTA. 4 See section 40 (1)(e) (iii) of the RTA. 5 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at page 8 6 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009 7 Richards v Scully TT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998.

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. However, I consider the tenant came close to meeting the reasonably clean and tidy standard. Some surfaces required a wipe down, the shower was dirty and the oven required a clean.
In addition to I do not consider the tenant is responsible for the premises being deep cleaned which was noted in the cleaning invoice. I have largely reimbursed the landlord’s cleaning costs but made a small deduction as the tenant is only required to ensure they leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
The lawns needed to be mowed and some weeding was required.
The amount ordered for cleaning is $300 and for garden work is $102.35. The amount ordered is proved with the move out inspection report and invoice. TENANT’S RESPONSIBILITY FOR DAMAGE
When considering a claim in respect of damage to the premises the following principles apply: a. A tenant must not intentionally or carelessly cause damage or permit any other person to damage the premises. 8 Where a landlord is claiming compensation for damage a landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. b. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. c. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. 9 d. Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. 10 e. Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance 8 See s 40 (2)(a) of the RTA. 9 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 10 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). 11 f. Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). 12 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 13 g. Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. 14 h. Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. 15 i. In assessing a claim for compensation, I must take into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

IS THE TENANT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAMAGE TO THE PREMISES?

The landlord said the property was new at the commencement of the tenancy.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. The walls and a lounge door were damaged, and a door frame had a chip. Some of the damage appears intentional, in that there was an attempt by the tenant to repair the damaged door and it has intentionally been left unfinished. 16 However, some of the damage appears to have been fair wear and tear. To reflect fair wear and tear I make a deduction from the amount claimed of $345. I award $300 in respect of the wall and door damage. 11 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 12 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 13 See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA. 14 See section 49B(1) RTA. 15 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. 16 Lounge door, photograph 221 – Lounge 8 of Move out inspection. b. The curtain blinds strings were removed. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amount ordered for the curtain strings is $115.00.
The amount ordered is proved with post-tenancy photographs and an invoice. Compensation for blinds
The landlord also claimed that some of the blinds were damaged.
I have reviewed the photographs, and I am not satisfied on the evidence that curtains are damaged or that if they are slightly damaged, that the damage is more than fair wear and tear.
The blinds do not appear to be aligned; however, it appears that installation of curtain strings would rectify the issue and I have awarded compensation above in respect of the strings.
The blinds do not appear particularly robust, which is a relevant factor.
In addition, only a quote was provided in respect of the blind replacement. The Tribunal takes a cautious approach when quotes are provided as the actual cost has not been established and the landlord may not actually pay the amounts quoted for the replacement / repair.
In addition, a new tenancy has commenced. In this case the landlord also advised the blinds have not been repaired but will be. However, in the circumstances where a new tenancy has commenced without the replacement being undertaken or necessary, I consider the landlord has not established loss.
For these reasons the claim for curtain blind damage is dismissed

LANDLORD EXPENSES

Section 44A of the RTA relates to the recovery of a landlord’s expenses on early termination of a fixed-term tenancy. The provision says: 44A Recovery of expenses incurred by landlord (1)A landlord who consents to an assignment under section 43B, to a subletting or parting with possession under section 44, or to termination of the tenancy in accordance with section 50(1)(d) is entitled to recover from the outgoing tenant any expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord in respect of the assignment, subletting, parting with possession, or termination. (2)A landlord who seeks to recover expenses from a tenant in accordance with subsection (1) must first provide an itemised account of the expenses to the tenant. (3)A landlord who takes any step to recover expenses referred to in subsection (1) without providing an itemised account of the expenses to the tenant— (a)commits an unlawful act; and (b)commits an infringement offence and is liable to a fine or an infringement fee specified in Schedule 1B.
This provision allows a landlord to claim from the tenant the actual costs in finding a replacement tenant where there has been an assignment, subletting or early termination of a fixed term. However the costs must be the actual cost, not a nominal charge, or standard fee. This provision requires an itemised account for actual expenses incurred that can be evidenced. What the landlord needs to do, is incur the cost, and then provide an itemised account to the tenant to pay those expenses, which the landlord has incurred. If the tenant does not pay that account, then the landlord can pursue a claim for those charges in the Tribunal. This does not include a finder’s fee or admin fee. 17 The Tribunal has dismissed a claim where the landlord was seeking to recover a nominal standard charge. 18 Previous proceedings
The RTA requires the Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants and to determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but it is not bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. 19
The Tribunal may strike out, in whole or in part, a proceeding, if satisfied that it is otherwise an abuse of process. 20
The principle of law known as “res judicata” prevents parties re-litigating a matter that has been finally decided on its merits. The rule of Henderson v Henderson 21 is a long-standing legal principle that requires a party to bring their entire case during the course of a single legal proceeding. 17 Tenant v Halamish Rental Limited [2025] NZTT 4880900 18 Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Hongying Xie v Fortune and Williams [2025] NZTT 5248456 at 17-18. 19 See section 85 of the RTA. 20 See section 92A of the RTA. 21 Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100
In considering whether the proceedings were an abuse of process these principles have been considered by the Court of Appeal in Craig v Stringer 22 which said: [16] Access to the courts will be denied where a litigant seeks to reopen a dispute that has already been determined. This is precluded by the doctrine of res judicata which serves the public interest in finality in litigation and upholds the principle that a party should not be vexed twice in the same matter. Res judicata applies where a cause of action has been determined in earlier proceedings between the same parties or their privies — cause of action estoppel. The doctrine prevents re-litigation of the same cause of action in any subsequent proceedings. Res judicata can also apply where there has been a determination in earlier proceedings between the same parties or their privies of an issue that was essential to the determination of the claim such that the judgment could not stand without it — issue estoppel. Issue estoppel is narrower, and less absolute in its application than cause of action estoppel. [17] A related principle is that the parties are required to bring forward their whole case and will generally be prevented from later attempting to re-open the same subject on a different basis. This principle was first recognised by Wigram V-C in Henderson v Henderson : [W]here 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 matter which might have been brought forward as part of the subject in contest, but which was not brought forward, only because they have, from negligence, inadvertence, or even accident, omitted part of their case. [18] ... The underlying policy is to promote finality in litigation and ensure a defendant is not oppressed by successive suits. The objection is not that the law will not contemplate or tolerate apparently inconsistent decisions. [19] Lord Sumption explained the juridical difference between the doctrine of res judicata and the Henderson v Henderson principle in Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd : Res judicata is a rule of substantive law, while abuse of process is a concept which informs the exercise of the court’s procedural powers. In my view, they are distinct although overlapping legal principles with the common underlying purpose of limiting abusive and duplicative litigation. That purpose makes it necessary to qualify the absolute character of both cause of action estoppel and issue estoppel where the conduct is not abusive. (footnotes omitted) 22 Craig v Stringer [2020] NZCA 260 [26 June 2020]
What this all means is that an unsuccessful party cannot simply file another application in the same body, 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. This case
On 8 April 2025 the Tribunal dismissed the landlord’s claims for expenses. The Tribunal said:
The landlord had applied for termination of the tenancy and rent arrears. Before the hearing, the tenancy ended by agreement and the landlord amended its claim to include an early termination fee.
It is disingenuous for a landlord to apply for termination and then seek to recover an early termination fee. A landlord may recover expenses incurred in respect to an assignment, a subletting, parting with possession or termination under Section 50(1)(d). A landlord must provide an itemised account to the tenant before seeking to recover any such expenses. The landlord did not provide evidence of an itemised account being sent to the tenant, rather it showed a sample email which it says is the same as would have been sent to the tenant. The invoice sent to the tenant was not itemised.
The landlord has the onus of proving its claims and has not established that it is entitled to recover costs for the early termination of this tenancy. That part of the claim is dismissed.
In this case, the landlord is seeking to relitigate a claim that formed part of their previous application. The claim was dismissed. I consider this current application to be subject to res judicata and an abuse of process.
If the landlord considered that there was a procedural problem with the first hearing, then a rehearing application could have been filed, or if the landlord considered the decision was simply wrong, then they could have appealed to the District Court.
For these reasons the claim for section 44A expenses is dismissed.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am expressing no view as to whether the claim had any merit.

FILING FEE

If an applicant has been partly successful in their claim, the Tribunal may order that the respondent pay the applicant the filing fee paid for the application. 23 As the landlord has partly succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee of $28.

BOND

Part of the bond is to be paid to the landlord to offset the amounts ordered. The balance of the bond will remain with the Bond Centre.

SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 24
The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or 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. 25
The landlord sought name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful with the claim therefore I make an order suppressing the landlord’s name.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5305339 — net $845.35 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Cleaning	$300.00	Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$102.35	Lawns and Garden work
Repairs: Wall/ door/frame repair	$300.00	Repairs: Wall/ door/frame repair
Repairs: Curtain string	$115.00	Repairs: Curtain string
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$845.35
Bond	$845.35
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$845.35

Claims and awards for application 5305339 — net $845.35 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Cleaning

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning

Lawns and Garden work

Amount: $102.35
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Lawns and Garden work

Repairs: Wall/ door/frame repair

Amount: $300.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Wall/ door/frame repair

Repairs: Curtain string

Amount: $115.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: Curtain string

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $28.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Dismissed claims

Property Damage — LANDLORD EXPENSES
Section 44A Expenses

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Cleanliness Filing Fee Lawns And Garden Work Property damage

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
Stedmann Fifita to pay [The landlord/s] $845.35 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $845.35 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [The landlord/s] immediately.
The balance of the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by video call.
The tenant was telephoned on the phone number provided but the phone call went unanswered. I am satisfied the tenant was properly served with the application and notice of the hearing by email. The hearing proceeded in her absence.
The landlord has applied for compensation, payment of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). Evidential burden
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations: a. That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. b. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden. c. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... “[L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.” Compensation
The Tribunal may award compensation to a party for losses arising from a proven breach or breaches by the other party of their statutory responsibilities under the RTA. Compensation is generally awarded for actual losses and sometimes for less tangible effects of proven breaches such as a loss of enjoyment of the tenancy and the accompanying stress and anxiety.
In Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust 1 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: • The nature of the breach; • The duration of the breach; and • The effect of the breach on the party. TENANT’S OBLIGATIONS
At the end of the tenancy the tenant must: a. remove all his or her goods from the premises, 2 b. leave the premises (including the land provided with the premises) reasonably clean and tidy, and 3 c. remove all rubbish. 4
When considering a claim for cleaning the following principles generally apply: a. There is no scientific way to determine what is ‘reasonably’ clean and tidy, what is required is for the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence available (particularly photographs presented), and then to determine whether the premises would be reasonably clean. b. The Tribunal will also consider factors such as the length of the tenancy, and the general condition of the premises (for example, surfaces that are new and in a good condition will be easier to clean than older and worn surfaces, particularly with paint work). c. Reasonably clean means clean to the standard an average, reasonable bystander would consider reasonable. 5 d. Reasonably clean does not mean commercially clean. 6 e. Reasonably clean does not mean spotless to a hotel or motel standard. 7 1 Birch v Otautahi Community Housing Trust [2020] NZDC 17667 2 See section 40 (1)(e) (ii) of the RTA. 3 See section 40 (1)(e) (iii) of the RTA. 4 See section 40 (1)(e) (iii) of the RTA. 5 Housing New Zealand v Holloway TT Auckland TT215/93, 8 February 1993 at page 8 6 Mills v Kiwi Property Care Ltd TT Hamilton 09/01418/HN, 27 July 2009 7 Richards v Scully TT Christchurch TT2043/98, 21 July 1998.

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

The tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. However, I consider the tenant came close to meeting the reasonably clean and tidy standard. Some surfaces required a wipe down, the shower was dirty and the oven required a clean.
In addition to I do not consider the tenant is responsible for the premises being deep cleaned which was noted in the cleaning invoice. I have largely reimbursed the landlord’s cleaning costs but made a small deduction as the tenant is only required to ensure they leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
The lawns needed to be mowed and some weeding was required.
The amount ordered for cleaning is $300 and for garden work is $102.35. The amount ordered is proved with the move out inspection report and invoice. TENANT’S RESPONSIBILITY FOR DAMAGE
When considering a claim in respect of damage to the premises the following principles apply: a. A tenant must not intentionally or carelessly cause damage or permit any other person to damage the premises. 8 Where a landlord is claiming compensation for damage a landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. b. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. c. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. 9 d. Fair wear and tear can be described as damage which might reasonably be expected to naturally occur over time, such as the deterioration or gradual wear occurring with everyday use. 10 e. Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance 8 See s 40 (2)(a) of the RTA. 9 See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA. 10 See Taylor v Webb [1937] 2KB 283 (CA). excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). 11 f. Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). 12 Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. 13 g. Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. 14 h. Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. 15 i. In assessing a claim for compensation, I must take into account betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan.

IS THE TENANT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAMAGE TO THE PREMISES?

The landlord said the property was new at the commencement of the tenancy.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: a. The walls and a lounge door were damaged, and a door frame had a chip. Some of the damage appears intentional, in that there was an attempt by the tenant to repair the damaged door and it has intentionally been left unfinished. 16 However, some of the damage appears to have been fair wear and tear. To reflect fair wear and tear I make a deduction from the amount claimed of $345. I award $300 in respect of the wall and door damage. 11 See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. 12 See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. 13 See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA. 14 See section 49B(1) RTA. 15 See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. 16 Lounge door, photograph 221 – Lounge 8 of Move out inspection. b. The curtain blinds strings were removed. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The amount ordered for the curtain strings is $115.00.
The amount ordered is proved with post-tenancy photographs and an invoice. Compensation for blinds
The landlord also claimed that some of the blinds were damaged.
I have reviewed the photographs, and I am not satisfied on the evidence that curtains are damaged or that if they are slightly damaged, that the damage is more than fair wear and tear.
The blinds do not appear to be aligned; however, it appears that installation of curtain strings would rectify the issue and I have awarded compensation above in respect of the strings.
The blinds do not appear particularly robust, which is a relevant factor.
In addition, only a quote was provided in respect of the blind replacement. The Tribunal takes a cautious approach when quotes are provided as the actual cost has not been established and the landlord may not actually pay the amounts quoted for the replacement / repair.
In addition, a new tenancy has commenced. In this case the landlord also advised the blinds have not been repaired but will be. However, in the circumstances where a new tenancy has commenced without the replacement being undertaken or necessary, I consider the landlord has not established loss.
For these reasons the claim for curtain blind damage is dismissed

LANDLORD EXPENSES

Section 44A of the RTA relates to the recovery of a landlord’s expenses on early termination of a fixed-term tenancy. The provision says: 44A Recovery of expenses incurred by landlord (1)A landlord who consents to an assignment under section 43B, to a subletting or parting with possession under section 44, or to termination of the tenancy in accordance with section 50(1)(d) is entitled to recover from the outgoing tenant any expenses reasonably incurred by the landlord in respect of the assignment, subletting, parting with possession, or termination. (2)A landlord who seeks to recover expenses from a tenant in accordance with subsection (1) must first provide an itemised account of the expenses to the tenant. (3)A landlord who takes any step to recover expenses referred to in subsection (1) without providing an itemised account of the expenses to the tenant— (a)commits an unlawful act; and (b)commits an infringement offence and is liable to a fine or an infringement fee specified in Schedule 1B.
This provision allows a landlord to claim from the tenant the actual costs in finding a replacement tenant where there has been an assignment, subletting or early termination of a fixed term. However the costs must be the actual cost, not a nominal charge, or standard fee. This provision requires an itemised account for actual expenses incurred that can be evidenced. What the landlord needs to do, is incur the cost, and then provide an itemised account to the tenant to pay those expenses, which the landlord has incurred. If the tenant does not pay that account, then the landlord can pursue a claim for those charges in the Tribunal. This does not include a finder’s fee or admin fee. 17 The Tribunal has dismissed a claim where the landlord was seeking to recover a nominal standard charge. 18 Previous proceedings
The RTA requires the Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants and to determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but it is not bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. 19
The Tribunal may strike out, in whole or in part, a proceeding, if satisfied that it is otherwise an abuse of process. 20
The principle of law known as “res judicata” prevents parties re-litigating a matter that has been finally decided on its merits. The rule of Henderson v Henderson 21 is a long-standing legal principle that requires a party to bring their entire case during the course of a single legal proceeding. 17 Tenant v Halamish Rental Limited [2025] NZTT 4880900 18 Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Hongying Xie v Fortune and Williams [2025] NZTT 5248456 at 17-18. 19 See section 85 of the RTA. 20 See section 92A of the RTA. 21 Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100
In considering whether the proceedings were an abuse of process these principles have been considered by the Court of Appeal in Craig v Stringer 22 which said: [16] Access to the courts will be denied where a litigant seeks to reopen a dispute that has already been determined. This is precluded by the doctrine of res judicata which serves the public interest in finality in litigation and upholds the principle that a party should not be vexed twice in the same matter. Res judicata applies where a cause of action has been determined in earlier proceedings between the same parties or their privies — cause of action estoppel. The doctrine prevents re-litigation of the same cause of action in any subsequent proceedings. Res judicata can also apply where there has been a determination in earlier proceedings between the same parties or their privies of an issue that was essential to the determination of the claim such that the judgment could not stand without it — issue estoppel. Issue estoppel is narrower, and less absolute in its application than cause of action estoppel. [17] A related principle is that the parties are required to bring forward their whole case and will generally be prevented from later attempting to re-open the same subject on a different basis. This principle was first recognised by Wigram V-C in Henderson v Henderson : [W]here 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 matter which might have been brought forward as part of the subject in contest, but which was not brought forward, only because they have, from negligence, inadvertence, or even accident, omitted part of their case. [18] ... The underlying policy is to promote finality in litigation and ensure a defendant is not oppressed by successive suits. The objection is not that the law will not contemplate or tolerate apparently inconsistent decisions. [19] Lord Sumption explained the juridical difference between the doctrine of res judicata and the Henderson v Henderson principle in Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd : Res judicata is a rule of substantive law, while abuse of process is a concept which informs the exercise of the court’s procedural powers. In my view, they are distinct although overlapping legal principles with the common underlying purpose of limiting abusive and duplicative litigation. That purpose makes it necessary to qualify the absolute character of both cause of action estoppel and issue estoppel where the conduct is not abusive. (footnotes omitted) 22 Craig v Stringer [2020] NZCA 260 [26 June 2020]
What this all means is that an unsuccessful party cannot simply file another application in the same body, 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. This case
On 8 April 2025 the Tribunal dismissed the landlord’s claims for expenses. The Tribunal said:
The landlord had applied for termination of the tenancy and rent arrears. Before the hearing, the tenancy ended by agreement and the landlord amended its claim to include an early termination fee.
It is disingenuous for a landlord to apply for termination and then seek to recover an early termination fee. A landlord may recover expenses incurred in respect to an assignment, a subletting, parting with possession or termination under Section 50(1)(d). A landlord must provide an itemised account to the tenant before seeking to recover any such expenses. The landlord did not provide evidence of an itemised account being sent to the tenant, rather it showed a sample email which it says is the same as would have been sent to the tenant. The invoice sent to the tenant was not itemised.
The landlord has the onus of proving its claims and has not established that it is entitled to recover costs for the early termination of this tenancy. That part of the claim is dismissed.
In this case, the landlord is seeking to relitigate a claim that formed part of their previous application. The claim was dismissed. I consider this current application to be subject to res judicata and an abuse of process.
If the landlord considered that there was a procedural problem with the first hearing, then a rehearing application could have been filed, or if the landlord considered the decision was simply wrong, then they could have appealed to the District Court.
For these reasons the claim for section 44A expenses is dismissed.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am expressing no view as to whether the claim had any merit.

FILING FEE

If an applicant has been partly successful in their claim, the Tribunal may order that the respondent pay the applicant the filing fee paid for the application. 23 As the landlord has partly succeeded with the claim, I have reimbursed the filing fee of $28.

BOND

Part of the bond is to be paid to the landlord to offset the amounts ordered. The balance of the bond will remain with the Bond Centre.

SUPPRESSION

The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 24
The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or 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. 25
The landlord sought name suppression. The landlord has been substantially successful with the claim therefore I make an order suppressing the landlord’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5305339 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5305339 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

IS THE TENANT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAMAGE TO THE PREMISES?

LANDLORD EXPENSES

FILING FEE

BOND

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Dismissed claims

Order

Reasons

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

CLEANING AND RUBBISH REMOVAL

IS THE TENANT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAMAGE TO THE PREMISES?

LANDLORD EXPENSES

FILING FEE

BOND

SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions