What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5354201 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5354201?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5354201?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12956397-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5354201 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5354201?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5354201?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12956397-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

65A Brunner Road, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5354201 — Leaks

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Laban attended for the landlord.

The tenant has brought a claim for breaches by the landlord relating to a leak in the roof during May and June of 2025. The tenant also raised issues regarding parking in the carport and the upstairs tenants making noise.

On 22 July 2025, the tenant made an application to Tenancy Services relating to the use of the carport and the upstairs tenants.

This application was referred to mediation and on 11 August 2025 a Mediator’s Order was sealed in which the fixed-term tenancy would finish early on 1 September 2025 and the landlord would not seek compensation for this.

The landlord was ordered to pay the tenant $350.00 compensation, which Ms Laban said related to a mix-up at the start of the tenancy about the use of carports.

Issues regarding the carport which are part of today’s application were resolved at mediation on 11 August 2025. Other issues such as the leaks pre-date this earlier application.

The rule of Henderson v Henderson is a long-standing legal principle that requires a party to bring their entire case during the course of a single legal proceeding.

An even older principle of law known as “res judicata” prevents two parties re- litigating a matter that has been finally juridically decided on its merits.

These two principles were discussed in the High Court decision of Muir, Bradbury, Peebles and Maud v Commissioner of Inland Revenue CIV-2011- 404-1132 [2015] NZHC 792 which included the following paragraph: “Where a given matter becomes the subject of litigation in, and 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 matters 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. 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 judgment, but to every point which properly belonged to the subject of litigation and which parties, exercising reasonable diligence, might have brought forward at the time. See Henderson v Henderson [1843] 3 Hare 100.”

Because some of the claims being raised today, eg. the issues regarding the carport and parking, and possibly the disagreements with the upstairs tenant have already been addressed in mediation, and all of today’s claims predate the previous application, the rule of Henderson v Henderson prevents these claims being determined today.

Ms Wijohn was obliged to bring her entire case as part of the previous application and can’t continue to make supplementary applications on a continuing basis as they come to mind.

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Laban attended for the landlord.
The tenant has brought a claim for breaches by the landlord relating to a leak in the roof during May and June of 2025. The tenant also raised issues regarding parking in the carport and the upstairs tenants making noise.
On 22 July 2025, the tenant made an application to Tenancy Services relating to the use of the carport and the upstairs tenants.
This application was referred to mediation and on 11 August 2025 a Mediator’s Order was sealed in which the fixed-term tenancy would finish early on 1 September 2025 and the landlord would not seek compensation for this.
The landlord was ordered to pay the tenant $350.00 compensation, which Ms Laban said related to a mix-up at the start of the tenancy about the use of carports.
Issues regarding the carport which are part of today’s application were resolved at mediation on 11 August 2025. Other issues such as the leaks pre-date this earlier application.
The rule of Henderson v Henderson is a long-standing legal principle that requires a party to bring their entire case during the course of a single legal proceeding.
An even older principle of law known as “res judicata” prevents two parties re- litigating a matter that has been finally juridically decided on its merits.
These two principles were discussed in the High Court decision of Muir, Bradbury, Peebles and Maud v Commissioner of Inland Revenue CIV-2011- 404-1132 [2015] NZHC 792 which included the following paragraph: “Where a given matter becomes the subject of litigation in, and 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 matters 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. 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 judgment, but to every point which properly belonged to the subject of litigation and which parties, exercising reasonable diligence, might have brought forward at the time. See Henderson v Henderson [1843] 3 Hare 100.”
Because some of the claims being raised today, eg. the issues regarding the carport and parking, and possibly the disagreements with the upstairs tenant have already been addressed in mediation, and all of today’s claims predate the previous application, the rule of Henderson v Henderson prevents these claims being determined today.
Ms Wijohn was obliged to bring her entire case as part of the previous application and can’t continue to make supplementary applications on a continuing basis as they come to mind.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5354201 — Leaks at 65A Brunner Road, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5354201 — Leaks at 65A Brunner Road, Glen Eden, Auckland 0602

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions