Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5451992 — Tenancy dispute at 19 Tonson Place, Weymouth, Auckland 2103
Decided 1 Jul 2026 · Published 1 Jul 2026 · Application 5451992
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.
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
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 Tenant’s name and identifying details.
- The application is dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing – the landlord by telephone and the tenant by videoconference.
- The landlord has made a claim against the tenant seeking compensation for damage to the carpet which he says was caused by dog urine.
- At today’s hearing I learned that the landlord had already brought a claim against the tenant for damage to the carpet caused by urine stains. In an order dated 11 April 2025 the Tribunal dismissed that part of the landlord’s claim against the tenant.
- The landlord then applied for a rehearing of his claim which the Tribunal did not allow, in an order dated 4 August 2025.
- The principle of res judicata is a doctrine which prevents parties from bringing another claim against the same party on an issue which has already been heard and determined.
- In this case that would mean that the landlord cannot bring another claim about the carpet seeking compensation for damage done by dog urine. That matter has already been heard and determined.
- At today’s hearing the landlord stated that: (a) The adjudicator for the previous claim advised him that he was entitled to bring a fresh claim – see para 18 of the order dated 4 August 2025; and (b) He ought to be able to bring a further claim because he has obtained new evidence from Auckland City Council.
- I am dismissing the landlord’s claim for reasons that include: (a) The principle of res judicata applies and it is not open to the landlord to re- litigate the issue with the carpet; and (b) On reading the Order dated 4 August 2025, the refence to the possibility of bringing a fresh claim relates to “unlawful acts”. It seems that within the confines of the rehearing application, the landlord attempted to bring in another claim against the tenant. The Tribunal advised the landlord that he was unable to bring a new claim in this way and the only possible avenue was for him to make a new claim against the tenant for this issue; and (c) The 4 August 2025 Order specifically addressed the issue of new evidence from the Auckland City Council and rejected this as being sufficient to grant a rehearing. Suppression of names
- I am not allowing the landlord’s application for suppression of his name because he was not successful in this claim against the tenant.
- I am ordering the tenant’s name to be suppressed because the tenant was fully successful in her defence to this claim. C ter Haar 01 July 2026