What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5344421 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Global Rentals And Property Management Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5344421?

Cleaning: $1,210.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Flooring: $2,020.00 awarded to landlord; Power Charges By Consent: $217.24 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,315.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Carpet and unde…: $2,020.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $461.91 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5344421?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5344421?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13984465-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5344421 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Global Rentals And Property Management Limited

How much money was awarded in case 5344421?

Cleaning: $1,210.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Flooring: $2,020.00 awarded to landlord; Power Charges By Consent: $217.24 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $1,315.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $550.00 awarded to landlord; Replace furnishings: Carpet and unde…: $2,020.00 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $461.91 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5344421?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5344421?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13984465-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 22 McKenzie Avenue, Arkles Bay, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5344421 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5344421 — net $6,452.15 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears by consent	$1,315.00	Rent arrears by consent
Water rates: by consent	$461.91	Water rates: by consent
power charges by consent	$217.24	power charges by consent
Kitchen cabinets - insurance excess	$550.00	Kitchen cabinets - insurance excess
Repairs: Bedroom #2 wall insurance excess by consent	$550.00	Repairs: Bedroom #2 wall insurance excess by consent
Flooring	$2,020.00	Flooring
Replace furnishings: Carpet and underlay	$2,020.00	Replace furnishings: Carpet and underlay
Cleaning and minor repairs (reduced	$1,210.00	Cleaning and minor repairs (reduced
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,452.15
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,452.15

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5344421 — net $6,452.15 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears by consent	$1,315.00	Rent arrears by consent
Water rates: by consent	$461.91	Water rates: by consent
power charges by consent	$217.24	power charges by consent
Kitchen cabinets - insurance excess	$550.00	Kitchen cabinets - insurance excess
Repairs: Bedroom #2 wall insurance excess by consent	$550.00	Repairs: Bedroom #2 wall insurance excess by consent
Flooring	$2,020.00	Flooring
Replace furnishings: Carpet and underlay	$2,020.00	Replace furnishings: Carpet and underlay
Cleaning and minor repairs (reduced	$1,210.00	Cleaning and minor repairs (reduced
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$6,452.15
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$6,452.15

Order

[The tenant/s] tenant/s] must pay Global Rentals And Property Management Limited As Agent For Gerry Rea $6,452.15 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,920.00 (5071713-019) to Global Rentals And Property Management Limited As Agent For Gerry Rea immediately.
The landlord’s claim for loss of rent is dismissed.
The tenant’s application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The Tribunal also received oral evidence during the hearing from two witnesses called by the landlord.
The landlord filed an application on 22 September 2025 seeking rent arrears, outstanding power and water charges, compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.
The tenant cross applied on 8 October 2025 seeking the return of her bond. She also used her application to oppose the various claims advanced by the landlord.
The tenancy started on or about 10 December 2022 and ended on 11 July 2025.
The premises consist of a unit in a block of 4 units, with 2 bedrooms and 1.5 bathrooms. The tenant resided there with her two teenage children, and later her partner. The landlord estimates that the premises were built in the 1970’s. The tenant also kept small two dogs on the premises.
I heard oral evidence from the parties today. I have considered everything placed before the Tribunal even if I do not specifically refer to it. Issues
On the landlord’s application the issues to be determined are these: a. Has the landlord proved a claim for rent, w a t e r a n d p o w e r charges? b. Has the landlord proved a claim for compensation for damage, cleaning and loss of rent? Relevant legal considerations Statutory provisions
Section 40 RTA sets out a tenant’s responsibilities. Included among them are the responsibility to pay rent when due; to keep the premises reasonably clean and tidy; to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition; and to quit the premises when the tenancy ends.
Section 85 RTA provides: 85 Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised (1)Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2)The Tribunal shall 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 shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. 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.
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.
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 the District Court confirmed that the Tribunal must consider the following factors when deciding to award compensation: a. The nature of the breach; b. The duration of the breach; and c. The effect of the breach on the party. Discussion

How much is owed for rent, water and power charges?

The tenancy ended on 11 July 2025. The landlord provided rent records, water rates and power invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord claims $461.91 for water and $217.24 for power.
The tenant confirmed during the hearing that she accepts the outstanding amounts claimed for rent, power and water.
Accordingly, the amounts are ordered by consent.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The landlord claims that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy.
The landlord claims $1660.00 for cleaning and minor repairs. They claim that the tenant did not leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition. The landlord provided a comprehensive exit inspection report undertaken on 12 July 2025, being the day after the tenant vacated the premises.
The tenant does not accept this claim saying that she spent two days cleaning the premises on 9th and 10th of July 2025.
The landlord produced an invoice for $1,660.00 from Bob a Job Property Maintenance dated 14 August 2025. The invoice also listed attendances in respect of minor repairs.
The invoice for cleaning and repairs records the following items which required attention a. Kitchen cleaning, including dishwasher (4 hours) b. Oven clean (1.5 hours) c. Washhouse and tub (1 hour) d. Walls (4.5 hours) e. Ceiling clean (2.5 hours) f. Heat pump filter clean (1 hour) g. Shower and bathroom clean (4 hours) h. Toilet clean (3 hours) i. Aluminium windows and ranch slider clean (2.5 hours)
The invoice also included expenses incurred for paint ($132.00), primer sealer and undercoat ($134.00), towel rail, toilet roll holder and entrance knob set ($98.00) and cleaning products ($96.00).
The landlord provided a number of routine inspection reports, including an entry inspection report dated 15 November 2022. The entry inspection report confirmed the premises overall to be in excellent condition. Analysis
The Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) requires a tenant, on termination of the tenancy, to leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
The tenancy commenced on 10 December 2022 and ended on 11 July 2025. During the tenancy, the tenant resided at the premises with her two teenage sons and later with her two dogs.
The landlord lodged their application on 22 September 2025 seeking compensation on the basis that the tenant failed to comply with her statutory obligations.
In support of the claim, the landlord produced, amongst other documents, an entry inspection report dated 15 November 2022, and the exit inspection report dated 12 July 2025.
Having carefully considered those inspection reports together with the photographic evidence, I am satisfied that the condition of the premises at the conclusion of the tenancy was materially inferior to the condition at the commencement of the tenancy, and that the tenant did not leave the premises in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
The landlord also provided an invoice from Bob a Job Property Maintenance dated 14 August 2025 for the amount of $1,660,00, which included charges for cleaning the kitchen and dishwasher, oven, laundry, walls, ceilings, heat pump filter, bathroom, toilet and aluminium windows and ranch slider, together with the cost of paint, primer and sealer, replacement of a toilet roll holder, entrance knob set and cleaning products.
While I accept the tenant’s breach necessitated cleaning and some associated minor repair work, I am not satisfied that the invoice reflects the reasonable time required to complete the work claimed.
Several aspects of the invoice are not supported by the inspection reports or photographic evidence.
By way of example, I do not accept that cleaning a heat pump filter reasonably required one hour, nor that three hours were reasonably required to clean a toilet and reattach a toilet roll holder. There is also no photographic evidence of the condition of the heat pump filter.
Similarly, the overall hours claimed for a number of the cleaning tasks appear disproportionate to the condition shown in the evidence.
Although the landlord is entitled to recover reasonable costs arising from the tenant’s breach, the Tribunal must assess compensation on the evidence before it rather than simply adopting the amount claimed.
I am satisfied that an award of 15 hours work, plus the cleaning and repair products totalling $1,210.00 fairly and reasonably reflects the cleaning and associated minor remedial work required to return to the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
Accordingly, I allow the landlord’s claim as amended.
The amount ordered is established.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
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 excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
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). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
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. See section 49B(1) RTA.
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. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The landlord claims the following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to kitchen cabinets, flooring damage, carpet and underlay damage and damage to wall in the second bedroom. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. Kitchen cabinets
The landlord says that he undertook the final inspection on 12 July 2025. The landlord says that flooded flooring had managed to also damage the cabinetry. He says the floors were soaking wet. The landlord says it was water on the floor but is unsure how the damage occurred. The landlord says that the kitchen cabinetry was new in 2022.
The landlord claims the insurance excess of $550.00 in respect of this damage. The landlord provided insurance confirmation from Sedgwick New Zealand limited dated 31 July 20255 confirming the excess payable of $550.00 per event.
The tenant says that when she left she used a rug doctor. She says that she also mopped the floor but says that there is no way the cabinetry could have been damaged after 8 hours. The tenant says that the landlord is exaggerating. She says she mopped the floor but did not use excess water.
The landlord produced an insurance report which noted that the water damage to the kitchen appeared to be from a water overflow of the kitchen sink. Flooring damage
The landlord claims that there was damage to the flooring in the lounge, hallway and both bedrooms. There was also damage to the carpet in these rooms.
The landlord claims the amount of $17,998.25 for the flooring which had to be replaced.
The landlord claims the carpet and flooring damage was caused by dog urine. He says that he discovered the damage to the flooring when he went to the lounge window to take a photo. He says that his foot went through the floor. He had the builder lift the carpet and could smell the dog urine. The insurance report also noted a smell of dog urine.
The landlord provided a paid tax invoice from Classic Restoration Homes and Builders Limited dated 13 August 2025 in support of the amount claimed. Carpet and underlay
The landlord says that the carpet was brand new in 2020. The insurance company declined cover in respect of the flooring and carpet.
The carpet had to be replaced, and the amount claimed is $3766.11.
The landlord provided a payment receipt from Midway Flooring dated 17 August 2025 in support of the amount claimed for carpet and underlay replacement.
The landlord also provided written insurance confirmation from Sedgwick New Zealand Limited dated 31 July 2025 confirming the excess payable along with confirmation as follows: Causes of loss not covered You are not covered for loss to the home connected in any way with an animal owned by anyone living in the home, if your home is occupied by a tenant. Application of this exclusion would mean that all of the carpet, underlay and particleboard flooring in the lounge, hall and bedroom 1 would be excluded.
The insurance report also recorded the comprehensive assessment undertaken by the insurance assessor. This included detailed photographs of the damage.
The tenant does not agree with the claims. She says that although she accepts that her dogs urinated inside at times there is no way that the damage was caused by her dogs. Wall damage in second bedroom
The landlord claims the insurance excess in respect of damage to walls in the second bedroom. They say that foam soundproofing type material had been placed on the wall which caused damage on removal.
The tenant accepts this claim and takes full responsibility for this. She says it was her teenage son who placed this on the wall.
The excess of $550.00 applies to this claim and is allowed by consent. Witnesses
The first witness says that he was involved in this property prior to this tenant moving in. He is a registered builder who also replaced the kitchen before the start of this tenancy.
He could not recall the exact date when the kitchen was replaced. He says that he also did the work in respect of the toilet and bathroom. He undertook exterior improvements.
The witness also says he had to replace the flooring in the dining room, lounge, hallway and main bedroom. He says that the original flooring was particle board. He says that when he attended to assess the flooring he thought it may have been due to a window leak.
He says the floor was spongy. He had to pull the carpet back and noticed the floor was soft and falling away. He says that the more carpet which was pulled up he noticed more damage to the flooring. He says he thought that it was moisture damage from maybe a window or maybe something had be poured on the floor. He says that he did not know the cause of the damage until the handyman mentioned the smell of dog urine.
The witness says that when they originally did the kitchen before the start of this tenancy he says that the flooring was in good condition. He also says that when the carpet was pulled back more there was more of a smell of dog urine throughout the house. He says that some areas of the flooring were worse than others.
The tenant asked the witness how old the flooring was at the time she moved in. The witness was unable to assess the age of the flooring.
The second witness gave evidence stating that he undertakes property maintenance. He has been involved with this property for at least 5 years.
The witness says that there was damage to flooring in the dining room. He says that were other areas which were spongy. He says that he tried to ascertain what had caused the damage. He says the floors were soft which he says appeared to be caused by dog urine. He says that at first he could not tell but when they started ripping back the carpet the strong smell of dog urine was evident. He says that that the floor was previously in good condition.
The landlord asked the witness what the state of the kitchen was at the start of the tenancy. He stated that it was not in the same condition at the end of the tenancy. Analysis
The RTA requires a tenant not to intentionally or carelessly damage or permit any other person to damage the premises during the tenancy. Having carefully considered all of the evidence, both oral and documentary, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the damage to the kitchen cabinetry, flooring, carpet and underlay occurred during the tenancy and was caused by the tenant's failure to take reasonable care of the premises.
The landlord's evidence was that upon undertaking the final inspection on 12 July 2025 the flooring was saturated, and that moisture had affected the adjacent kitchen cabinetry which the landlord said had been newly installed prior to the commencement of the tenancy.
Although the landlord was unable to identify the precise manner by which the kitchen cabinet damage occurred, the insurance assessment concluded that damage to the kitchen was consistent with water overflow from the kitchen sink.
I accept that assessment. The tenant denied causing excessive water damage stating that she had merely mopped the floor and after using a rug doctor carpet cleaner, and that the landlord had exaggerated the extent of the damage.
I do not accept that explanation. The extent of the damage is evident from the photographs together with the insurance assessment and the condition of the flooring observed immediately after the tenancy ended is inconsistent with a limited use of water as described by the tenant.
In the absence of any alternative credible explanation or expert evidence from the tenant challenging the landlord’s evidence I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the damage occurred during the tenancy and was more likely than not the result of water escaping onto the flooring over a sufficient period to damage both the kitchen flooring and adjoining kitchen cabinetry.
I therefore allow the landlord’s claim for reimbursement of the insurance excess of $550.00 in respect of the kitchen cabinetry damage. Flooring, carpet and underlay
I reach the same conclusion in relation to the flooring, carpet and underlay. The landlord produced detailed evidence from two independent witnesses with direct knowledge of the condition of the premises, both before and after the tenancy.
The first witness, a registered builder who undertook substantial renovation work at the property prior to the commencement of the tenancy, including installation of the kitchen and improvements to the bathroom and toilet gave credible evidence that the flooring was in good condition at the time. He explained that after the tenancy ended the flooring was found to be soft, spongy and deteriorated beneath the carpet.
As further sections of carpet were removed a strong smell of dog urine became increasingly apparent throughout the affected areas. While he initially considered whether the damage may have resulted from a window leak or another source of moisture, he ultimately concluded, having observed the extent and pattern of the deterioration together with the pervasive odour that prolonged exposure to dog urine had caused significant damage to the flooring.
His evidence was supported by the second witness who had undertaken maintenance at the property over approximately 5 years and was familiar with its condition. He likewise described the flooring as soft and spongy and stated that once the carpet was lifted the smell of dog urine was obvious.
He also confirmed that the flooring had previously been in good condition and that the kitchen was not in the condition in which it had been left following the renovations.
I found both witnesses to be credible, experienced and independent and their evidence was consistent with each other coupled with the photographic evidence.
The tenant accepted that her dogs had on occasions urinated inside the premises but denied that this could have caused the extensive damage claimed. However, beyond that denial the tenant produced no expert or other persuasive evidence to challenge the conclusions reached by the landlord's witnesses or to suggest any other plausible cause of the damage.
The issue for the tribunal is whether the landlord has established, on the balance of probabilities, that the damage was caused during the tenancy by the tenant's breach of her obligations.
Having considered all the evidence I am satisfied that there is no other plausible explanation for the widespread deterioration to the flooring, carpet and underlay and kitchen cabinets.
The evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that water exposure together with repeated dog urination over the course of the tenancy caused the damage requiring replacement of these items.
I therefore find that the tenant is liable to compensate the landlord for the proven loss arising from damage caused by carelessness.
Accordingly, the tenant's liability falls under the careless damage provisions of the RTA which limits tenant liability to the lower of the landlord's proven loss or 4 weeks rent.
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). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA
I also note the landlord's evidence that the carpet had been newly installed in 2020, just prior to the commencement of this tenancy. Given its relatively new condition at the outset of the tenancy I do not consider it appropriate to make a deduction for depreciation or betterment when assessing the landlord's proven loss.
The landlord has established that the replacement costs represent the loss suffered as a consequence of the tenant's carelessness.
I therefore allow the landlord's claim for damage compensation for the flooring, carpet and underlay, together with the insurance excess relating to the kitchen cabinetry but only to the extent permitted by the statutory limit. The weekly rent was $505.00 according to the rent ledger provided by the landlord.
Accordingly, I allow the claim for flooring, carpet and underlay and award as follows a. Flooring: $505.00 x 4 = $2020.00 b. Carpet and underlay: $505.00 x 4 = $2020.00 Claim for loss of rent
The landlord claims a loss of rent for the period 17 July 2025 to 17 August 2025. The landlord says that the flooring repair work meant that a new tenant could not move in. They say that the flooring repair work was completed just prior to a new tenant moving in.
The tenant does not accept this and says the claim is unreasonable and has nothing to do with her.
The landlord seeks compensation for loss of rental income for the amount of $2216.07.
The landlord submits that the extensive repair work was required to replace the damaged flooring which prevented the premises from being re-tenanted immediately following the termination of this tenancy and that, as a consequence rental income was lost during that period.
While I accept that repairs to the premises were required following the end of the tenancy that fact alone is insufficient to establish an entitlement to compensation for loss of rent.
The onus rests with the landlord to prove that a loss was suffered but also that the loss was caused by the tenant's breach of obligations.
In this case the landlord has provided no documentary or other persuasive evidence to support the claim. There was no evidence that prospective tenants had been secured but were unable to take possession because of the repair work; no evidence of advertising or marketing of the premises; no tenancy agreement showing a delayed commencement date; no evidence of inquiries from prospective tenants that could not proceed nor any other financial records demonstrating that rental income was in fact lost during the period claimed.
The landlord's assertion that new tenants could not move into the premises until flooring repairs had been completed is unsupported by independent evidence. While that assertion may be correct the tribunal cannot speculate as to whether the premises would otherwise have been tenanted immediately as claimed.
Compensation must be based on proven loss. In the absence of evidence establishing that the landlord suffered the claimed loss of rental income as a direct consequence of the tenants breach I am not satisfied that the claim has been proved.
Accordingly, the landlord's claim for loss of rent is declined.
Because Global Rentals And Property Management Limited As Agent For Gerry Rea has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee. Name 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 – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The tenant applied for non-publication of her name and identifying details.
The tenant sought suppression of her name. However, the tenant was not wholly or substantially successful.
I have considered if I should grant a name suppression order for the tenant having regard to the interests of the parties and public interest under Section 95A(4) RTA.
I am mindful that open justice is a fundamental principle in our legal system. The issue here I need to consider is whether suppressing the tenant’s name and identifying details outweigh the interest of the open justice reporting principle.
In my view, the tenant’s application for name suppression and identifying details ought to be declined for the following reasons: a. It is common for parties appearing before the Tribunal to seek suppression orders. But that is not of itself a sufficient reason to make the order. b. The disputes before me are not unusual other than the ordinary business of the Tribunal. c. The open justice principle requires the outcome of adjudication to be available to the public; and d. Weighing up the interests of the tenant and the public interest, the public interest outweighs the tenant’s interests.
Accordingly, no order is made for suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5344421 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 2, 22 McKenzie Avenue, Arkles Bay,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5344421 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 2, 22 McKenzie Avenue, Arkles Bay,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent, water and power charges?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent, water and power charges?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.