Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5393083 — Tenancy dispute at 4A Eaglen Place, Howick, Auckland 2010
Published 13 March 2026 · Application 5393083
Landlord favoured
- Filing Fee
- Filing Fee Reimbursement
- Property damage
- Rent arrears
- Water Rates
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
M Feist
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $2,184.40
- Total balance for Tenant to pay Landlord
- $2,184.40
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Previous order application 5360582 dated 17/11/2025 | $2,042.29 | Previous order application 5360582 dated 17/11/2025 | |
| Water rates | $114.11 | Water rates | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $2,184.40 | ||
| Total payable by Tenant to Landlord | $2,184.40 |
Claims and awards for application 5393083 — net $2,184.40 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Previous order application 5360582 dated 17/11/2025
- Amount
- $2,042.29
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Previous order application 5360582 dated 17/11/2025
Water rates
- Amount
- $114.11
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Water rates
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Landlord
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Landlord $2,184.40
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord
Landlord $2,184.40
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 17 November 2025 under application 5360582.
- Johannes Frederick Van der Merwe and Christel Van der Merwe must pay Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Roxy Property Holdings Ltd (Mark Wallace) $2,184.40 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.
Reasons
- On 20 November 2025 the landlord filed an application seeking: a. Rent arrears. b. Outstanding water rates. c. Compensation for wall damage. d. Refund of the bond; and e. Reimbursement of the filing fee.
- The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. Mr Yao Hou, Property Manager, appeared for the landlord. The tenants did not appear. The Tribunal was satisfied the tenants were properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in their absence.
- At the hearing the landlord withdrew their claim for compensation after failing to provide evidence in support of their claim that the tenants had damaged a wall in the property. Relevant legal considerations
- The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”).
- 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 balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. 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. History of the tenancy
- The tenancy commenced on 7 March 2025 with the fixed term due to expire on 5 March 2026.
- The parties agreed to an early termination of the tenancy which officially ended on 16 November 2025.
- On 17 November 2025 the Tribunal ordered 1 : a. The tenants to pay rent arrears totalling $5,414.29 to 16 November 2025; b. Refunded the bond to the landlords - $3,400.00; and c. Ordered the tenant’s to reimburse the filing fee.
Should the Tribunal order rent arrears?
- The landlord seeks rent arrears totalling $5,414.29 to the 16 November 2025.
- The landlord accepts that this matter has previously been determined. In explanation for their claim the landlord said they were seeking one order containing all money awarded for enforcement purposes.
- The Tribunal declined to make an award for rent arrears. This matter was previously determined in the decision of the Tribunal dated 17 November 2025 2 . The principles of res judicata apply 3 .
How much is owed in water rates?
- The landlord seeks outstanding water rates for the following periods: a. 18 September 2025 to 17 October 2025 - $ 59.77 b. 17 October 2025 to 16 November 2025 - $ 54.34.
- The landlord said the tenants were provided with a copy of the water rates bill and provided an invoice in the amounts claimed. The invoice was signed by both the landlord and tenant, which they say proves the tenants accepted liability for the water rates debt.
- Having heard from the landlord and considering all of the evidence the Tribunal finds the amount claimed proved. 1 Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Roxy Property Holdings Ltd (Mark Wallace) v Johannes Frederick Van Der Merwe [2025] NZTT 5360582 2 Ibid. 3 Res judicata has been defined by Spencer Bower, Turner and Handley in Res Judicata (3rd ed, 1996, Butterworths) as follows: In English law a res judicata is a decision pronounced by a judicial tribunal having jurisdiction over the case and the parties which disposes once and for all of the matters decided, so that except on appeal, they cannot afterwards be relitigated between the same parties or their privies. Other matters
- On 17 November 2025, the Tribunal made an order relating to this tenancy for rent arrears to 16 November 2025. The previous order is incorporated into this order for enforcement purposes.
- Because Barfoot & Thompson Limited As Agent For Roxy Property Holdings Ltd (Mark Wallace) has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
- Despite being substantially successful the landlord did not seek name suppression.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s18, s4
Key findings
- Dispute theme: water rates
- Dispute theme: filing fee
Property management
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5393083?
The tribunal order states: This order incorporates the Tribunal order made on 17 November 2025 under
How much money was awarded in case 5393083?
Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Previous Order Application 5360582 D…: $2,042.29 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $114.11 awarded to landlord
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5393083?
The dispute type was not classified.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5393083?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13276410-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.