Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5473773 — Mould & damp
Decided 22 Jun 2026 · Published 22 Jun 2026 · Application 5473773
- Mould & damp
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
D Watson
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 application is dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- On 19 February 2026, Adjudicator Ben Fayed heard a prior application between the parties. The tenants had applied for compensation relating to some moisture ingress and sought compensation for personal belongings allegedly damaged. As a result of the condition of the property they moved out early.
- They filed a claim for compensation for breach of the landlord’s obligations of maintenance and repair. The Adjudicator found the claim not proven but included the following sentences in his decision:
- The issue arose again in June and the parties ultimately disagreed. The tenancy was then ended by mutual consent, and the tenants were given a two- week rent credit valued at $1,720.00.
- I consider that credit to be sufficient compensation for the inconvenience experienced by the tenants in these circumstances.
- The landlord claims that he never said at the prior hearing that this money had been agreed as a rent credit. He read the sentence under the heading “ORDER”, which merely recorded that the application had been dismissed. He then considered the rest of the decision was not part of the order or did not have binding effect.
- He therefore assumed the bond amount would be returned to him. The prior property manager has then arranged for the two week rent credit to be given to the tenant by way of the bond. Analysis
- There is a principle of finality in litigation which means that the parties must bring their best case on the day of the hearing, because the order of the Tribunal or Court will be final and end the proceeding (other than for appeals and rehearings).
- The rule of Henderson v Henderson 1 is a long-standing legal principle that requires a party to bring their entire case during the course of a single legal proceeding. In effect means a party cannot bring another claim, when it could have been brought earlier. The principle of law known as “res judicata” prevents parties re-litigating a matter that has been finally decided on its merits.
- The landlords did not bring their own cross application before the Tribunal at the prior hearing for return of the bond. Had they done so, the issue raised by the current application might have been to the fore of his mind. The landlord disagrees strongly with the above excerpt from the decision. They say they never agreed to a rent credit.
- If I agree with the tenants that the prior adjudicator has already made a ruling about the two week rent credit then I consider the application of the principle in Henderson v Henderson means that the landlord cannot bring a further claim in this matter in relation to the bond.
- Having carefully read the decision in full I am of the view the prior adjudicator has made a ruling about the two weeks rent credit. He has recorded that the landlord agreed it was to be a rent credit.
- The landlord says that the adjudicator dismissed the claim overall and so to some extent, the paragraphs referred to above are inconsistent with that ruling. Whilst I have some sympathy for the landlord in this regard, the plain meaning of the orders is that the Adjudicator has ruled on the additional two weeks rent credit.
- The landlord’s options were to appeal or to apply for a rehearing. To this point, he has done neither.
- I must dismiss this claim against the tenant for the foregoing reasons.
- As I explained to the landlord, any dispute they have with their prior property manager does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal. They will 1 Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100. need to take that dispute to another forum. I dismiss the claim against Upper House Property Management Ltd.
- The tenants have been successful and are entitled to name suppression.