What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5475869 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is struck out by an order made on the papers.

How much money was awarded in case 5475869?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5475869?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5475869?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13817789-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5475869 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is struck out by an order made on the papers.

How much money was awarded in case 5475869?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5475869?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5475869?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13817789-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

58 McGill Street, Waimangaroa, Westport 7891 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5475869 — Exemplary damages

Order

The application is struck out by an order made on the papers.

Reasons

The landlord is seeking to have the decision of the Tribunal, Daniel Waines v Larry Lihs [NZTT] 4828080 issued on 14 October 2024, cancelled. In effect Mr Lihs is seeking a further rehearing of this application. Preliminary matter
The current application by Mr Lihs was filed against Jeni Greenland as guarantor. While Ms Greenland’s email was provided in the previous application as an address for service , in addition to Mr Waines email, there is no record on any document that Ms Greenland was a guarantor under the agreement . As the current application is seeking to overturn an order of the Tribunal in favour of Mr Waines, the correct party against whom this application is filed is Mr Waines. History- 4828080
On 19 June 2024 the Tribunal issued an order finding that the agreement between Mr Lihs and Mr Waines was a residential tenancy.
A substantive hearing followed on 14 October 2024. The Tribunal ordered exemplary damages and compensation to the tenant amounting to $6920.44. Mr Lihs did not attend that hearing.
On 20 April 2025 Mr Lihs filed an application for rehearing on the following grounds: •He was out of NZ at the time of the hearing and didn’t know about it. •He disagreed with the findings of the Tribunal, including that it was residential tenancy. •He returned to NZ in December 2024 and couldn’t get a lawyer
He requested that the application be considered on the papers.
On 7 May 2025 the Tribunal issued an order dismissing the application on the following grounds: •The application was made well out of time, and he could have applied immediately on his return to NZ in December 2024. •He had not attended on 2 previous dates this matter had been scheduled for hearing without advising the Tribunal or applying for an adjournment. •As he had been out of NZ for more than 21 days, he should have appointed an agent. •He was aware of the hearing as the Call Centre had received a call on the day of the hearing from his partner to say he was out of NZ and that the application was wasting taxpayers’ money with the application. •A lawyer is not required to file the form for an application for rehearing. •The fact Mr Lihs did not agree with the findings of the Tribunal is not a ground for rehearing. Current application
Mr Lihs filed the current application on 25 March 2026. It was initially unclear what claims he was making but he has now confirmed that what he wants is the orders made on 14 October 2024 cancelled. Findings
The Tribunal may strike out, in whole or in part, a proceeding, if satisfied that it is otherwise an abuse of process. (See Section 92A Residential Tenancies Act 1986)
The principle of law known as “res judicata” prevents parties re-litigating a matter that has been finally decided on its merits.
In considering whether the proceedings were an abuse of process these principles have been considered by the Court of Appeal in Craig v Stringer [2020] NZCA 260 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 re-litigation of the same cause of action in any subsequent proceedings.
In the current case Mr Lihs exercised his right to apply for a rehearing of the decision issued on 14 October 2024 and this application was dismissed. There are no exceptional circumstances existing that would justify the opportunity for Mr Lihs to apply for a further rehearing or to relitigate matters that have previously been determined by the Tribunal. To do so justifies an abuse of process and as such this application is struck out.

Order

The application is struck out by an order made on the papers.

Reasons

The landlord is seeking to have the decision of the Tribunal, Daniel Waines v Larry Lihs [NZTT] 4828080 issued on 14 October 2024, cancelled. In effect Mr Lihs is seeking a further rehearing of this application. Preliminary matter
The current application by Mr Lihs was filed against Jeni Greenland as guarantor. While Ms Greenland’s email was provided in the previous application as an address for service , in addition to Mr Waines email, there is no record on any document that Ms Greenland was a guarantor under the agreement . As the current application is seeking to overturn an order of the Tribunal in favour of Mr Waines, the correct party against whom this application is filed is Mr Waines. History- 4828080
On 19 June 2024 the Tribunal issued an order finding that the agreement between Mr Lihs and Mr Waines was a residential tenancy.
A substantive hearing followed on 14 October 2024. The Tribunal ordered exemplary damages and compensation to the tenant amounting to $6920.44. Mr Lihs did not attend that hearing.
On 20 April 2025 Mr Lihs filed an application for rehearing on the following grounds: •He was out of NZ at the time of the hearing and didn’t know about it. •He disagreed with the findings of the Tribunal, including that it was residential tenancy. •He returned to NZ in December 2024 and couldn’t get a lawyer
He requested that the application be considered on the papers.
On 7 May 2025 the Tribunal issued an order dismissing the application on the following grounds: •The application was made well out of time, and he could have applied immediately on his return to NZ in December 2024. •He had not attended on 2 previous dates this matter had been scheduled for hearing without advising the Tribunal or applying for an adjournment. •As he had been out of NZ for more than 21 days, he should have appointed an agent. •He was aware of the hearing as the Call Centre had received a call on the day of the hearing from his partner to say he was out of NZ and that the application was wasting taxpayers’ money with the application. •A lawyer is not required to file the form for an application for rehearing. •The fact Mr Lihs did not agree with the findings of the Tribunal is not a ground for rehearing. Current application
Mr Lihs filed the current application on 25 March 2026. It was initially unclear what claims he was making but he has now confirmed that what he wants is the orders made on 14 October 2024 cancelled. Findings
The Tribunal may strike out, in whole or in part, a proceeding, if satisfied that it is otherwise an abuse of process. (See Section 92A Residential Tenancies Act 1986)
The principle of law known as “res judicata” prevents parties re-litigating a matter that has been finally decided on its merits.
In considering whether the proceedings were an abuse of process these principles have been considered by the Court of Appeal in Craig v Stringer [2020] NZCA 260 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 re-litigation of the same cause of action in any subsequent proceedings.
In the current case Mr Lihs exercised his right to apply for a rehearing of the decision issued on 14 October 2024 and this application was dismissed. There are no exceptional circumstances existing that would justify the opportunity for Mr Lihs to apply for a further rehearing or to relitigate matters that have previously been determined by the Tribunal. To do so justifies an abuse of process and as such this application is struck out.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5475869 — Exemplary damages at 58 McGill Street, Waimangaroa, Westport 7891

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5475869 — Exemplary damages at 58 McGill Street, Waimangaroa, Westport 7891

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions