What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5436810 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5436810?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5436810?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5436810?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13512279-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5436810 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5436810?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5436810?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5436810?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13512279-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

15 Antrim Street, Normanby, Dunedin 9010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5436810 — Rent arrears

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

On 2 February 2026 the tenant filed an application seeking refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. The tenant appeared by telephone. Ms [The tenant/s], Property Manager, appeared for the landlord.
At the commencement of the hearing the tenant confirmed that in addition to a refund of the bond they also sought reimbursement of rent paid in advance at the commencement of the tenancy that they claim had not been properly accounted for in the rent records. Brief history of the tenancy and claim
The tenancy commenced on 7 June 2018.
The tenancy ended on 6 June 2025.
On 23 July 2025 the landlord successfully applied for a one-party refund of the bond. The bond was used to off-set rent arrears owing at the end of the tenancy and the Tribunal was told this was reflected in the rent summary.
On 31 January 2026 the Tribunal ordered 1 the tenant to pay $932.97 to the landlord being: a. Rent arrears of $904.97 b. Filing fee reimbursement $28.00
The tenant did not lodge an appeal due to financial constraints regarding the filing fee. Dispute
The tenant continues to dispute the arrears, claims there were discrepancies in the rent summary which failed to account for rent paid in advance, and the order was based on fictious evidence.
The Tenant also challenges the Bond refund process and use of the bond to offset a portion of the rent debt. The law
Section 80 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”) states: Orders of the Tribunal to be final: Subject to sections 105 and 117 to 120, every order made by the Tribunal shall, unless it is expressed to be in interim order made under section 79, be final and binding on all parties to the proceedings.
Section 80 of the Act confirms the common law doctrine of res judicata, which prevents a party a re-litigating a matter already decided by a competent Tribunal or Court.
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. 1 Lincoln Darling Real Estate Limited (Ta - Darling Realty) As Agent For Matthew Futcher v [The tenant/s] [2026] NZTT 5364961
The 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”.
It is not at all uncommon that a party who has been unsuccessful in proceedings in a court or Tribunal, reflects on matters and considers there are other arguments they could have made, or further evidence they could have produced. But that is not enough. A noted by Justice Fogarty in Shepherd v Disputes Tribunal [2004] NZAR 19 at paras [35] – [36]: Whenever a party against whom a judgment has been made has failed to raise some question he or she could have raised, the judgment includes a decision on the omitted question. This is because the law imposes a positive obligation on litigants to bring forward their whole case. The law will not hear a litigant to argue later that they have not argued their case carefully or inadvertently or by accident omitted part of their case. This has been the law for a considerable period of time and dates back to the leading case of Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100 at 114- 115.
This may seem hard on litigants. But the reason for the law taking this approach is that there is a greater public interest in decisions being final. If that were not the case, then litigation could go on and on and on. See Hoystead v Federal Taxation Commissioner [1926] AC 155, 165-166 (PC).
The rule in Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100 was restated by Sir Thomas Bingham MR, as he then was in Barrow v Bankside Members Agency Limited [1996] 1 WLR 257 at 260: The rule in Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100 is very well known. It requires the parties, when a matter becomes the subject of litigation between them in a court of competent jurisdiction, to bring their whole case before the court so that all aspects of it may be finally decided (subject, of course, to any appeal) once and for all. In the absence of special circumstances, the parties cannot return to the court to advance arguments, claims or defences which they could have put forward for decision on the first occasion but failed to raise. The rule is not based on the doctrine of res judicata in a narrow sense, nor even on any strict doctrine of issue or cause of action estoppel. It is a rule of public policy based on the desirability, in the general interest as well as that of the parties themselves, that litigation should not drag on forever and that a defendant should not be oppressed by successive suits when one would do. That is the abuse at which the rule is directed. Analysis and decision
In this case the tenant seeks to argue that the landlord’s rent ledger failed to properly account for rent paid in advance and that the bond refund process was flawed the money was improperly use of the bond to offset the rent debt. The issue of rent arrears owing at the end of the tenancy has previously been determined by the Tribunal 2 .
Once the Tribunal has determined a matter it cannot be reheard unless a rehearing is granted, or an appeal is successful and the matter (in whole or in part) is referred back by the Court. The tenant did not seek a rehearing of that decision under section 105 of the Act or appeal the decision under sections 117 -120 of the Act.
The Tribunal does not had jurisdiction to rehear matters that have already been determined and the application is dismissed. Other matters
The tenant seeks name suppression.
Under section 95A of the Act a party who has been either wholly or substantially successful is entitled to name suppression unless the Tribunal finds that there are reasons relating to the conduct of the party not to do so.
The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful and the Tribunal declines to order suppression

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

On 2 February 2026 the tenant filed an application seeking refund of the bond and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. The tenant appeared by telephone. Ms [The tenant/s], Property Manager, appeared for the landlord.
At the commencement of the hearing the tenant confirmed that in addition to a refund of the bond they also sought reimbursement of rent paid in advance at the commencement of the tenancy that they claim had not been properly accounted for in the rent records. Brief history of the tenancy and claim
The tenancy commenced on 7 June 2018.
The tenancy ended on 6 June 2025.
On 23 July 2025 the landlord successfully applied for a one-party refund of the bond. The bond was used to off-set rent arrears owing at the end of the tenancy and the Tribunal was told this was reflected in the rent summary.
On 31 January 2026 the Tribunal ordered 1 the tenant to pay $932.97 to the landlord being: a. Rent arrears of $904.97 b. Filing fee reimbursement $28.00
The tenant did not lodge an appeal due to financial constraints regarding the filing fee. Dispute
The tenant continues to dispute the arrears, claims there were discrepancies in the rent summary which failed to account for rent paid in advance, and the order was based on fictious evidence.
The Tenant also challenges the Bond refund process and use of the bond to offset a portion of the rent debt. The law
Section 80 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”) states: Orders of the Tribunal to be final: Subject to sections 105 and 117 to 120, every order made by the Tribunal shall, unless it is expressed to be in interim order made under section 79, be final and binding on all parties to the proceedings.
Section 80 of the Act confirms the common law doctrine of res judicata, which prevents a party a re-litigating a matter already decided by a competent Tribunal or Court.
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. 1 Lincoln Darling Real Estate Limited (Ta - Darling Realty) As Agent For Matthew Futcher v [The tenant/s] [2026] NZTT 5364961
The 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”.
It is not at all uncommon that a party who has been unsuccessful in proceedings in a court or Tribunal, reflects on matters and considers there are other arguments they could have made, or further evidence they could have produced. But that is not enough. A noted by Justice Fogarty in Shepherd v Disputes Tribunal [2004] NZAR 19 at paras [35] – [36]: Whenever a party against whom a judgment has been made has failed to raise some question he or she could have raised, the judgment includes a decision on the omitted question. This is because the law imposes a positive obligation on litigants to bring forward their whole case. The law will not hear a litigant to argue later that they have not argued their case carefully or inadvertently or by accident omitted part of their case. This has been the law for a considerable period of time and dates back to the leading case of Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100 at 114- 115.
This may seem hard on litigants. But the reason for the law taking this approach is that there is a greater public interest in decisions being final. If that were not the case, then litigation could go on and on and on. See Hoystead v Federal Taxation Commissioner [1926] AC 155, 165-166 (PC).
The rule in Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100 was restated by Sir Thomas Bingham MR, as he then was in Barrow v Bankside Members Agency Limited [1996] 1 WLR 257 at 260: The rule in Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100 is very well known. It requires the parties, when a matter becomes the subject of litigation between them in a court of competent jurisdiction, to bring their whole case before the court so that all aspects of it may be finally decided (subject, of course, to any appeal) once and for all. In the absence of special circumstances, the parties cannot return to the court to advance arguments, claims or defences which they could have put forward for decision on the first occasion but failed to raise. The rule is not based on the doctrine of res judicata in a narrow sense, nor even on any strict doctrine of issue or cause of action estoppel. It is a rule of public policy based on the desirability, in the general interest as well as that of the parties themselves, that litigation should not drag on forever and that a defendant should not be oppressed by successive suits when one would do. That is the abuse at which the rule is directed. Analysis and decision
In this case the tenant seeks to argue that the landlord’s rent ledger failed to properly account for rent paid in advance and that the bond refund process was flawed the money was improperly use of the bond to offset the rent debt. The issue of rent arrears owing at the end of the tenancy has previously been determined by the Tribunal 2 .
Once the Tribunal has determined a matter it cannot be reheard unless a rehearing is granted, or an appeal is successful and the matter (in whole or in part) is referred back by the Court. The tenant did not seek a rehearing of that decision under section 105 of the Act or appeal the decision under sections 117 -120 of the Act.
The Tribunal does not had jurisdiction to rehear matters that have already been determined and the application is dismissed. Other matters
The tenant seeks name suppression.
Under section 95A of the Act a party who has been either wholly or substantially successful is entitled to name suppression unless the Tribunal finds that there are reasons relating to the conduct of the party not to do so.
The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful and the Tribunal declines to order suppression

Tenancy Tribunal case 5436810 — Rent arrears at 15 Antrim Street, Normanby, Dunedin 9010

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5436810 — Rent arrears at 15 Antrim Street, Normanby, Dunedin 9010

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions