What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5432029 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is struck out.

How much money was awarded in case 5432029?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5432029?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Mould & damp, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5432029?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13643478-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5432029 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is struck out.

How much money was awarded in case 5432029?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5432029?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Mould & damp, Leaks.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5432029?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13643478-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Apartment 2E, 4 Lorne Street, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5432029 — Rent arrears

Order

The application is struck out.
The Tribunal orders suppression of both parties names and identifying details.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy commenced on 5 May 2023 and ended on 21 May 2024.
The tenant’s evidence shows there were weathertightness and maintenance issues at the tenancy address. The tenant filed a claim with the Tenancy Tribunal on 31 January 2024 in relation to those issues.
A hearing was held on 15 March 2024. The tenant did not attend. On the same day, the Tribunal determined the landlord’s rent arrears claim and dismissed the tenant’s claim. Dismissal is a common outcome where an applicant does not appear before the Tribunal to present their claim.
On 27 January 2026, the tenant filed a further claim with the Tenancy Tribunal relating to the same cause of action, namely the alleged leaking and maintenance issues at the tenancy address.
The landlord brought the earlier application to my attention and submitted that the present claim should be struck out on the basis that it had already been determined by the Tribunal.
Following a thorough review of both the earlier and current applications, I am satisfied that the tenant has previously brought this claim, and that it was dismissed.
In considering whether the present proceedings amount to an abuse of process, I have considered the principles discussed by the Court of Appeal in Craig v Stringer at [16]–[17], where the Court said: [16] Access to the courts will be denied where a litigant seeks to reopen a dispute that has already been determined. This is precluded by the doctrine of res judicata which serves the public interest in finality in litigation and upholds the principle that a party should not be vexed twice in the same matter. Res judicata applies where a cause of action has been determined in earlier proceedings between the same parties or their privies — cause of action estoppel. The doctrine prevents relitigation of the same cause of action in any subsequent proceedings. Res judicata can also apply where there has been a determination in earlier proceedings between the same parties or their privies of an issue that was essential to the determination of the claim such that the judgment could not stand without it — issue estoppel. Issue estoppel is narrower, and less absolute in its application than cause of action estoppel. [17] A related principle is that parties are required to bring forward their whole case and will generally be prevented from later attempting to reopen the same subject on a different basis. This principle was first recognised by Wigram V-C in Henderson v Henderson: “[W]here a given matter becomes the subject of litigation in, and of 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 matter 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 applicant’s position is that the matter was not truly heard because the claim was dismissed following non-attendance. They tell me that they were sick and unable to attend. However, the application was filed, the issues were clearly known in 2024, and a hearing was scheduled. The landlord attended the hearing and was required to respond to the claims at that point. The claims were then dismissed.
The timeframe to apply for a rehearing passed. The timeframe to appeal the decision also passed. At that point, the respondent was entitled to proceed on the basis that the matter had been resolved.
Whilst the applicant is out of time to appeal, in special circumstances a rehearing my be granted out of time and it is open to the applicant to seek a rehearing out of time on the original application.
To permit the applicant to relitigate the same issues now would amount to an abuse of process. Accordingly, the claim is struck out (see section 92A(d) of the RTA 1986).
The applicant has indicated to me that his health issues have resulted in the delay in bringing his case. I am satisfied that his personal circumstances outweigh any public interest in the publication of his details. Given the outcome it is appropriate to extend suppression to the other party also (see section 95A(4) of the RTA 1986).

Order

The application is struck out.
The Tribunal orders suppression of both parties names and identifying details.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The tenancy commenced on 5 May 2023 and ended on 21 May 2024.
The tenant’s evidence shows there were weathertightness and maintenance issues at the tenancy address. The tenant filed a claim with the Tenancy Tribunal on 31 January 2024 in relation to those issues.
A hearing was held on 15 March 2024. The tenant did not attend. On the same day, the Tribunal determined the landlord’s rent arrears claim and dismissed the tenant’s claim. Dismissal is a common outcome where an applicant does not appear before the Tribunal to present their claim.
On 27 January 2026, the tenant filed a further claim with the Tenancy Tribunal relating to the same cause of action, namely the alleged leaking and maintenance issues at the tenancy address.
The landlord brought the earlier application to my attention and submitted that the present claim should be struck out on the basis that it had already been determined by the Tribunal.
Following a thorough review of both the earlier and current applications, I am satisfied that the tenant has previously brought this claim, and that it was dismissed.
In considering whether the present proceedings amount to an abuse of process, I have considered the principles discussed by the Court of Appeal in Craig v Stringer at [16]–[17], where the Court said: [16] Access to the courts will be denied where a litigant seeks to reopen a dispute that has already been determined. This is precluded by the doctrine of res judicata which serves the public interest in finality in litigation and upholds the principle that a party should not be vexed twice in the same matter. Res judicata applies where a cause of action has been determined in earlier proceedings between the same parties or their privies — cause of action estoppel. The doctrine prevents relitigation of the same cause of action in any subsequent proceedings. Res judicata can also apply where there has been a determination in earlier proceedings between the same parties or their privies of an issue that was essential to the determination of the claim such that the judgment could not stand without it — issue estoppel. Issue estoppel is narrower, and less absolute in its application than cause of action estoppel. [17] A related principle is that parties are required to bring forward their whole case and will generally be prevented from later attempting to reopen the same subject on a different basis. This principle was first recognised by Wigram V-C in Henderson v Henderson: “[W]here a given matter becomes the subject of litigation in, and of 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 matter 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 applicant’s position is that the matter was not truly heard because the claim was dismissed following non-attendance. They tell me that they were sick and unable to attend. However, the application was filed, the issues were clearly known in 2024, and a hearing was scheduled. The landlord attended the hearing and was required to respond to the claims at that point. The claims were then dismissed.
The timeframe to apply for a rehearing passed. The timeframe to appeal the decision also passed. At that point, the respondent was entitled to proceed on the basis that the matter had been resolved.
Whilst the applicant is out of time to appeal, in special circumstances a rehearing my be granted out of time and it is open to the applicant to seek a rehearing out of time on the original application.
To permit the applicant to relitigate the same issues now would amount to an abuse of process. Accordingly, the claim is struck out (see section 92A(d) of the RTA 1986).
The applicant has indicated to me that his health issues have resulted in the delay in bringing his case. I am satisfied that his personal circumstances outweigh any public interest in the publication of his details. Given the outcome it is appropriate to extend suppression to the other party also (see section 95A(4) of the RTA 1986).

Tenancy Tribunal case 5432029 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Apartment 2E, 4 Lorne Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5432029 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Apartment 2E, 4 Lorne Street, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions