What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5440028 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5440028?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5440028?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5440028?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13493451-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5440028 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5440028?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $2,400.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5440028?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5440028?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13493451-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5440028 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5440028 — net $2,428.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 23 April 2026	$2,400.00	Rent arrears (to 23 April 2026
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,428.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,428.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlords’ and tenants’ name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $2,428.00 immediately, being rent arrears to 23 April 2026.

Reasons

On 9 February 2026, the landlord filed an application seeking rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. [Property Manager], Property Manager, appeared for the landlord. The tenants appeared by telephone. History if the tenancy
The tenancy commenced on 24 May 2021.
On 18 May 2025, the parties signed a new fixed term tenancy expiring 18 May 2026.
The landlord told the Tribunal the tenants have been served with a notice under section 60A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”) terminating the tenancy at the end of the fixed term.

How much is owed for rent arrears?

The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the date of hearing totals $2,400.00.
The tenants took no issue with amount claimed and that is what is ordered. Are the tenant’s liable to pay compensation for a previous Tribunal filing fee?
The landlord seeks compensation of $28.00 after filing earlier proceedings with the Tribunal under application number 5394486. The landlord said the claim was withdrawn after the tenant cleared the arrears and agreed to pay costs.
The tenant disputes the amount claimed saying it had been agreed with the Adjudicator that the filing fee would be deducted from the rent paid in advance.
The Tribunal declines to award cost in respect of an earlier filing fee. The costs should have been claimed at that hearing and the principle of res judicata applies.
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.
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).
In this case the landlords should have claimed costs at the hearing of the previous matter but failed to do so. The principles of res judicata apply and the claim is dismissed. Other matters
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Section 95A(1) of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, order that party’s name and identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim and is therefore granted name suppression.
The tenants have been substantially successful in defence of the landlord’s claims and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying particulars.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5440028 — net $2,428.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears (to 23 April 2026	$2,400.00	Rent arrears (to 23 April 2026
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,428.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,428.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlords’ and tenants’ name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $2,428.00 immediately, being rent arrears to 23 April 2026.

Reasons

On 9 February 2026, the landlord filed an application seeking rent arrears, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee.
The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. [Property Manager], Property Manager, appeared for the landlord. The tenants appeared by telephone. History if the tenancy
The tenancy commenced on 24 May 2021.
On 18 May 2025, the parties signed a new fixed term tenancy expiring 18 May 2026.
The landlord told the Tribunal the tenants have been served with a notice under section 60A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”) terminating the tenancy at the end of the fixed term.

How much is owed for rent arrears?

The landlord has applied for rent arrears and has provided rent records which prove the amount owing at the date of hearing totals $2,400.00.
The tenants took no issue with amount claimed and that is what is ordered. Are the tenant’s liable to pay compensation for a previous Tribunal filing fee?
The landlord seeks compensation of $28.00 after filing earlier proceedings with the Tribunal under application number 5394486. The landlord said the claim was withdrawn after the tenant cleared the arrears and agreed to pay costs.
The tenant disputes the amount claimed saying it had been agreed with the Adjudicator that the filing fee would be deducted from the rent paid in advance.
The Tribunal declines to award cost in respect of an earlier filing fee. The costs should have been claimed at that hearing and the principle of res judicata applies.
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.
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).
In this case the landlords should have claimed costs at the hearing of the previous matter but failed to do so. The principles of res judicata apply and the claim is dismissed. Other matters
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Section 95A(1) of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, order that party’s name and identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.
The landlord has substantially succeeded with the claim and is therefore granted name suppression.
The tenants have been substantially successful in defence of the landlord’s claims and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying particulars.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5440028 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5440028 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent arrears?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for rent arrears?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions