Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5394943 — Rent arrears
Decided 18 May 2026 · Published 18 May 2026 · Application 5394943
- Rent arrears
Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Adjudicator
V Pasupati
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.
Order
- The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
- Jurisdiction to determine the application is declined and accordingly, it is dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing, with [The landlord’s representative] representing the landlord. The Tribunal was assisted by [the tenant’s interpreter], interpreter.
- The tenant has filed an application seeking payment of the bond. The question arises as to whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine this dispute, since the tenant previously filed an application claiming refund of the bond. This is application number 4304403, which was heard by the Tribunal in 2022, and was dismissed.
- At the hearing, the tenant explained that the previous decision was made while he was overseas, and he wanted to have another hearing, because he was unable to participate at the earlier hearing. He applied for a rehearing, which was not accepted, because he was away. Now he is back in the country, he has applied again. He felt it was not right that the bond was paid to the landlord because the building was not safe. Essentially, he wanted the chance to have his say, and sought the re-opening of his case, since he was overseas when the matter was heard. He states the issue was not so much about the bond, but rather, he was upset with the property manager at the time, whom he expected would attend the current hearing.
- The landlord submits that there has been no miscarriage of justice. There had been multiple hearings that were adjourned. The tenant did not appear or contact the landlord, and did not show why he could not attend. Therefore, a rehearing should not be granted. Analysis
- Having considered the evidence and submissions of both parties, I find that the principle of res judicata applies to the current application filed by the tenant. The principle of res judicata prevents the same dispute between the same parties from being heard again, once it has been finally decided by a competent tribunal or court. This principle was explained in the District Court decision of Flood v LJ Hooker Ltd 1 as follows: [5] Res judicata has been defined by Spencer Bower, Turner and Handley in Res Judicata (3rd ed, 1996, Butterworths) at para [1]: 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. Referring to the judgments of Gazley v Cooke (1997) 11 PRNZ 71, Reihana v Hitchcock (HC Invercargill CP35/95, 19 August 1997, Master Venning) and Gordon v Billington (HC Wellington, CP192/96, 22 August 1997, Greig J), the learned authors of LexisNexis’ District Court Practise (Civil) said at DCR209.8 stated that “It is an abuse of process where a matter has already been litigated to conclusion, and a disgruntled party to that litigation seeks to resurrect it in some other form”.
- In this case, the tenant’s current application, number 5394943, is essentially the same as the application filed in 2021, number 4304403, which has already been determined. His current application is effectively an attempt to relitigate the same dispute which has already been decided by the Tribunal. 1 CIV-2009-016-000248, Gisborne District Court, 31 August 2009, Judge Connell.
- The history shows that the tenant originally applied on 1 June 2021 for a return of the bond of $2,040.00. In this application, he provided evidence concerning the building, including a notice issued by [Event location suppressed] Council and a building inspection report. This matter was set for hearing and was adjourned on two occasions.
- The application was heard in 2022. In the Tribunal order dated 6 February 2022, the Tribunal noted that the tenant did not attend the hearing at the scheduled time, request an adjournment, or notify the Tribunal the matter has settled. The Tribunal attempted to contact the tenant via telephone, however, there was no answer. Accordingly, the tenant’s application was dismissed. The landlord’s application was successful, and the landlord was awarded rent arrears, water rates, and the filing fee. The bond was ordered to be paid to the landlord.
- The tenant filed a rehearing on 14 June 2024, two years after the original order was issued. His application for rehearing was dismissed on 17 June 2024. In this order, it was noted that the tenant had not provided sufficient reasons as to why he was unable to attend the hearing.
- The tenant then filed the current application, on 21 November 2025. This is again an application for his bond of $2,040.00 to be refunded.
- While noting the reasons for the tenant seeking another opportunity to present his case, I find that his current application is essentially the same as the original application he filed in June 2021. This application has already been determined by the Tribunal in February 2022, and his subsequent rehearing application was unsuccessful.
- In this situation, the principle of res judicata applies, so the Tribunal cannot again determine the same dispute, since it has already been determined in an earlier proceeding. While the tenant did not appear at the earlier hearings, he was given the opportunity to do so. It is unfortunate that he was overseas at the time, however, it is his responsibility to make the necessary arrangements so he can participate in the hearing when they are scheduled.
- Accordingly, jurisdiction is declined, and the application is dismissed. Name suppression
- Section 95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) provides that the Tribunal may, on the application of any party to the proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party, not be published.
- On my own initiative, pursuant to section 95A(1) of the RTA, I have suppressed both parties’ names. I do so mainly because the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the application, so there is low public interest in having the parties’ names published.