What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5316007 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 5316007?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5316007?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5316007?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12615948-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5316007 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 5316007?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5316007?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5316007?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12615948-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5316007 — Healthy homes

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord has applied for the cost of mowing the lawns at the end of the tenancy.

The tenant says the lawns did not need mowing and applies for exemplary damages against the landlord on the grounds that throughout the tenancy various farm animals were frequently on her front lawn, chopping up the lawn and leaving animal waste.

The details of this matter are: a. The tenancy commenced in March 2024 and came to an end on 14 July 2025. b. There was a prior Tenancy Tribunal hearing in this matter resulting in a decision issued by the Tribunal in February 2025 1 where the tenant had raised a range of claims against the landlord, including for breach of Healthy Homes Standards. c. On 7 July 2025, the tenant gave one weeks notice, pursuant to an agreement she had reached with the landlord to be able to give a short notice. d. On 16 July 2025, two days after the tenant moved out, the landlord took a series of photographs of the lawns. These show the back lawns of the property in particular to be well overgrown, and the front lawns also of a reasonable length, although not quite as overgrown as the back yard. e. The landlord initially obtained a quote from a contractor of over $1000 to mow the lawns. The landlord got a cheaper quote for $740 and eventually the lawn were mown by that party on 20 August 2025. f. The tenant produced a photograph of the outside of the tenancy, taken on about 3 July 2025, showing a horse in the front lawn. She claims the lawns were in reasonable condition at that time. She also referred to the trade me listing photographs taken by the landlord not long after she moved out (before the lawns were mowed). These show a limited part of the lawn at a reasonable length, albeit they have not been taken from the rear of the property, where the grass was much longer.

The tenant has recently filed a cross application, which she is wanting to be dealt with today.

Regarding her cross claim, the tenant alleges that throughout the tenancy, various farms animals (of the landlord’s) entered her lawn area, chopping up the lawn and leaving animal waste.

She provided photographs of sheep, cows and a horse on the lawn at various times. She provided no photograph or evidence of the lawns being chopped up and nor did she provided photographs evidence of animal waste being on the awn. She provided no evidence of her losses as a result of this issue. She claims she broke a lawn mower as a result of this issue but provided no corroborating evidence of that.

This alleged failure on the part of the landlord was not raised at the last hearing of this matter, when the tenancy was well underway. Burden of proof 1 TT 5006746

Before I go on to deal with the claims each party has made, I first comment on the relevant burden of proof.

I begin by noting that in regard to the burden of proof, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That means that it is for the party bringing the application to establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. They must establish that what they are claiming is more probable than not.

Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and reports and photographs can be an important part of discharging this burden.

Ultimately, it is for the party making the application to decide what evidence to put before the Tribunal. As noted in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy, in practical terms this means that: 2 ...[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. The landlord’s claim.

The tenant’s obligation was to leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy. The tenant was responsible for mowing the lawns during the tenancy, according to the agreement the parties reached, and indeed the tenant did now the lawns during the tenancy.

The relevant time for the lawns to be left reasonably tidy was at the date of termination of the tenancy, which was 14 July. The landlord’s photographs are more detailed than those of the tenants and are more contemporaneous with the termination of the tenancy. As such, they are more reliable.

I accept the landlord took those photographs only a few days after the end of the tenancy.

The photographs show the rear of the property as being well overgrown and the front yard at a reasonably high length.

I am satisfied the lawns were not in a reasonably tidy condition at the end of the tenancy.

The question is what sum should I award to compensate the landlord for the tenant’s breach of her obligations? The landlord is entitled to a reasonable amount. 2 Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy DC Waitakere 233/02, 12 April 2002, at [7].

The lawns were finally mowed on 20 August 2025. That was well over a month after termination and there would have been a lot more grass at that stage. The contractor would have spent more time there.

I also accept the tenant’s evidence that there were places where the lawns were not quite as overgrown, although based on the photographs I was shows, I consider the lawns were mainly overgrown.

I consider the amount of $400 reasonable compensation for mowing the lawn, taking into account the foregoing factors. The back yard was definitely very overgrown but the grass would have been longer by the time it was finally mown, therefore causing more work and increasing the need to remove the clippings. The tenant’s claim

The tenant has not proven her claim on the balance of probabilities. The photographs show animals in the front lawn but I had no evidence before me of any loss.

Further, she claimed this issue had been arising throughout the tenancy. She did not however raise it when the matter was last before the Tribunal.

The rule of Henderson 3 applies. This rule says a party must bring all of their case at the one hearing. They cannot have another go. As noted by Fogarty J in Shephard v Disputes Tribunal 4 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.

I consider this aspect of the claim ought to have been raised when the matter was previously before the tribunal, but the tenant did not do so. I therefore dismiss this claim.

Because [The applicant/s] has largely succeeded with the claim I reimburse the filing fee. 3 Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100 at 114 - 115 4 [2004] NZAR 19 at paras [35] – [36]:

I award name suppression in favour of the landlord because it has been the successful party.

Reasons