What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5391861 about?

The tribunal order states: Mr Morrison’s application is struck out.

How much money was awarded in case 5391861?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5391861?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5391861?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12975897-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5391861 about?

The tribunal order states: Mr Morrison’s application is struck out.

How much money was awarded in case 5391861?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5391861?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5391861?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12975897-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

86 Abel Smith Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5391861 — 14-day notice

Order

Mr Morrison’s application is struck out.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The respondent (FMT) was represented by its lawyer Mr Conder.
FMT was granted possession of a commercial building on 19 August 2025 because the owner failed to pay the loan. Mr Morrison was living in a flat which was located in the commercial building. At the time the order was made he was the sole director of the company which owned the building.
Mr Morrison has applied for a declaration that he had a residential tenancy. He also wants the Tribunal to consider claims for compensation and exemplary damages because his tenancy ended unlawfully and without proper notice. He submitted that FMT became his landlord after the order for possession was made on 19 August. The application was set down before me for a hearing to decide whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction.
FMT submitted that the application to the Tenancy Tribunal should be struck out because it is an abuse of process. This is because the High Court has already decided the issue. Section 92A (d) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) gives the Tribunal the power to strike out a proceeding if it is an abuse of process.
I have read Mr Morrison’s submission and considered his submission at the hearing. The key issue for Mr Morrison is whether he had a residential tenancy. However the most relevant question for me is whether another court has already decided these legal issues.

Has another court already decided these legal issues?

On 17 June 2025 the lawyer for the owner submitted a notice of opposition to the summary judgment. One of the grounds was that the commercial building was subject to a residential tenancy, and consequently an order for possession was not possible.
Associate Judge Paulsen’s minute made after a hearing on 17 June records that the owner would not pursue a defence that there was a residential tenancy in place preventing FMT from obtaining an order for vacant possession, it being accepted there was an association between the owner and Mr Morrison, who was occupying the flat.
On 19 August Associate Judge Skelton made an order for judgment, including an order for possession.
On 25 September Mr Morrison made an application in the High Court for urgent injunctive relief to prevent FMT from enforcing vacant possession of the flat he was living in. This is because he needed more time to secure accommodation and would be homeless. In the judgment dated 29 September McQueen J dismissed the application for an interim injunction because there was no seriously arguable question to be tried. Mr Morrison’s submission the August judgment did not specifically consider his personal residence was not accepted. His submission it was unfair to require him to vacate the flat was not sufficient reason to change the possession order.
On 8 October Churchman J considered an interlocutory application filed by Mr Morrison for a stay of the eviction or possession process, including an order which would allow him to continue living in the flat until a determination by the Tenancy Tribunal. This application was struck out because of an issue estoppel. This is because there was already a final judgment on 29 September, between the same parties, in the same capacity, on the same pleaded issues.
Churchman J said that an issue estoppel operates when a court conclusively determines an issue or issues between parties, and the parties cannot reopen the issue or issues. If the parties attempt to re-litigate those same issues an abuse of process will occur. The rule reflects both the public interest in there being an end to litigation, and the private interest of parties to court processes not being subjected by their opponents to vexatious litigation.
On 18 November Mr Morrison filed this application with the Tenancy Tribunal. He wants me to consider whether he had a residential tenancy, and whether FMT complied with the RTA when it took possession.
I find the possession order made on 19 August was made with knowledge of the flat and with the knowledge that Mr Morrison was living there. In September the High Court found that Mr Morrison living in the flat was not a reason to change the possession order.
I find that Mr Morrison’s application in the Tenancy Tribunal is the same dispute between the same parties, about possession of a building that includes the flat Mr Morrison lived in. This dispute has been decided by other courts. I find there is an issue estoppel. This is an abuse of process, and I strike the application out under section 92A (d) RTA. Costs
Section 102 (2) RTA allows parties who are legally represented to claim costs. If the parties cannot agree on the issue of costs the Mr Conder can file submissions as to costs within 14 days. Mr Morrison may file a submission is response within 14 days. Costs will then be determined on the papers.

Order

Mr Morrison’s application is struck out.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The respondent (FMT) was represented by its lawyer Mr Conder.
FMT was granted possession of a commercial building on 19 August 2025 because the owner failed to pay the loan. Mr Morrison was living in a flat which was located in the commercial building. At the time the order was made he was the sole director of the company which owned the building.
Mr Morrison has applied for a declaration that he had a residential tenancy. He also wants the Tribunal to consider claims for compensation and exemplary damages because his tenancy ended unlawfully and without proper notice. He submitted that FMT became his landlord after the order for possession was made on 19 August. The application was set down before me for a hearing to decide whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction.
FMT submitted that the application to the Tenancy Tribunal should be struck out because it is an abuse of process. This is because the High Court has already decided the issue. Section 92A (d) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) gives the Tribunal the power to strike out a proceeding if it is an abuse of process.
I have read Mr Morrison’s submission and considered his submission at the hearing. The key issue for Mr Morrison is whether he had a residential tenancy. However the most relevant question for me is whether another court has already decided these legal issues.

Has another court already decided these legal issues?

On 17 June 2025 the lawyer for the owner submitted a notice of opposition to the summary judgment. One of the grounds was that the commercial building was subject to a residential tenancy, and consequently an order for possession was not possible.
Associate Judge Paulsen’s minute made after a hearing on 17 June records that the owner would not pursue a defence that there was a residential tenancy in place preventing FMT from obtaining an order for vacant possession, it being accepted there was an association between the owner and Mr Morrison, who was occupying the flat.
On 19 August Associate Judge Skelton made an order for judgment, including an order for possession.
On 25 September Mr Morrison made an application in the High Court for urgent injunctive relief to prevent FMT from enforcing vacant possession of the flat he was living in. This is because he needed more time to secure accommodation and would be homeless. In the judgment dated 29 September McQueen J dismissed the application for an interim injunction because there was no seriously arguable question to be tried. Mr Morrison’s submission the August judgment did not specifically consider his personal residence was not accepted. His submission it was unfair to require him to vacate the flat was not sufficient reason to change the possession order.
On 8 October Churchman J considered an interlocutory application filed by Mr Morrison for a stay of the eviction or possession process, including an order which would allow him to continue living in the flat until a determination by the Tenancy Tribunal. This application was struck out because of an issue estoppel. This is because there was already a final judgment on 29 September, between the same parties, in the same capacity, on the same pleaded issues.
Churchman J said that an issue estoppel operates when a court conclusively determines an issue or issues between parties, and the parties cannot reopen the issue or issues. If the parties attempt to re-litigate those same issues an abuse of process will occur. The rule reflects both the public interest in there being an end to litigation, and the private interest of parties to court processes not being subjected by their opponents to vexatious litigation.
On 18 November Mr Morrison filed this application with the Tenancy Tribunal. He wants me to consider whether he had a residential tenancy, and whether FMT complied with the RTA when it took possession.
I find the possession order made on 19 August was made with knowledge of the flat and with the knowledge that Mr Morrison was living there. In September the High Court found that Mr Morrison living in the flat was not a reason to change the possession order.
I find that Mr Morrison’s application in the Tenancy Tribunal is the same dispute between the same parties, about possession of a building that includes the flat Mr Morrison lived in. This dispute has been decided by other courts. I find there is an issue estoppel. This is an abuse of process, and I strike the application out under section 92A (d) RTA. Costs
Section 102 (2) RTA allows parties who are legally represented to claim costs. If the parties cannot agree on the issue of costs the Mr Conder can file submissions as to costs within 14 days. Mr Morrison may file a submission is response within 14 days. Costs will then be determined on the papers.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5391861 — 14-day notice at 86 Abel Smith Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5391861 — 14-day notice at 86 Abel Smith Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has another court already decided these legal issues?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has another court already decided these legal issues?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions