What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5488668 about?

The tribunal order states: Mr Sharma’s applications for rent arrears, compensation and termination of the

How much money was awarded in case 5488668?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5488668?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5488668?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13840191-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5488668 about?

The tribunal order states: Mr Sharma’s applications for rent arrears, compensation and termination of the

How much money was awarded in case 5488668?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5488668?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5488668?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13840191-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

1 Wilson Road, Dairy Flat, RD 2, Dairy Flat 0792 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5488668 — Rent arrears

Order

Mr Sharma’s applications for rent arrears, compensation and termination of the tenancy are an abuse of process and struck out.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing. Ms Brassey did not join the video meeting and could not be contacted by telephone.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy and rent arrears.
At the hearing, convened this morning, Mr Sharma did not provide the complete background to his applications. That is unfortunate as the background is entirely relevant to the outcome of this order and set out below.
On 9 March 2026 the Tribunal made an order directing Mr Sharma to pay Ms Brassey $25,882.20 in compensation for various breaches of the RTA.
Mr Sharma’s late cross application for rent arrears and compensatory and exemplary damages (including for rubbish removal costs) was dismissed. In relation to the rent arrears claim the Tribunal noting that the landlord had not provided accurate rent records and that the tenant had disproved the amount owing.
The Tribunal also ordered that Mr Sharma carry out extensive remedial work at the premises by 22 March 2026 and that the rent would abate by up to $475 per week from 9 March 2026 until the various required work ordered was completed, the tenant’s bond lodged, and accurate rent records provided.
Mr Sharma applied for a rehearing of the 9/3/2026 order and stay of proceedings in relation to that order. His applications were dismissed “on the papers”.
The Tribunal noting that if Mr Sharma disagreed with the Tribunals findings of fact or application of the law, then this was grounds for appeal and not re- hearing and specifically that a re-hearing was not an opportunity for Mr Sharma to provide better evidence to support his claims (including for rent arrears and rubbish removal costs), when that evidence could and should have been provided at the hearing.
Mr Sharma lodged an appeal against the Tribunal Order and requested the District Court stay enforcement of the 9 March 2026 order. The tenant opposed the application for leave to appeal and the application for a stay.
On 1 May 2026, His Honour, Judge Clark declined the application for a stay noting that none of the grounds cited by Mr Sharma justified the granting of a stay of proceedings.
Mr Sharma’s appeal will be considered in due course.
Despite this background Mr Sharma has reapplied for rent arrears owing from the commencement of the tenancy, rubbish removal costs and termination of the tenancy. His application failed to refer to the previous Tribunal decisions and the Appeal currently lodged, and he did not raise these issues at the hearing this morning. He confirmed that the bond remained unlodged.
That is a significant omission as the previous orders are entirely relevant to this decision to strike out Mr Sharma’s claims as an abuse of process.
The Tribunal declines to consider again Mr Sharma’s claims. These are matters that the Tribunal has already adjudicated and furthermore has declined to reconsider by way of rehearing. The appeal against the Tribunal’s findings that rent arrears/compensation and termination of the tenancy, could not be awarded is currently before the District Court on appeal.
It would therefore be entirely inappropriate to reconsider the issue of rent arrears and termination, at least until the District Court has issued its decision.
Section 92A RTA confirms that the Tribunal may strike out proceedings, in whole or in part, a proceeding if satisfied that it (a) discloses no reasonable cause of action; or (b) is likely to cause prejudice or delay; or (c) is frivolous or vexatious; or (d) is otherwise an abuse of process.
In considering whether proceedings are an abuse of process The Court of Appeal in Craig v Stringer [2020] NZCA 260 said this: [16] 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 relitigation of the same cause of action in any subsequent proceedings. Res judicata can also apply where there has been a determination in earlier proceedings between the same parties or their privies of an issue that was essential to the determination of the claim such that the judgment could not stand without it — issue estoppel. Issue estoppel is narrower, and less absolute in its application than cause of action estoppel.
As the issues have been previously determined in tribunal orders and are the subject of an appeal to the District Court they are struck out. The landlord is prevented from simply filing another claim seeking to relitigate the same issues as that is an abuse of process.
Neither party requested name suppression, so no orders are made. While the Tribunal considered supressing the tenant’s name at its own volition, she did not attend the hearing to make that request and did not request name suppression in relation to the 9/3/2026 Tribunal order either.

Order

Mr Sharma’s applications for rent arrears, compensation and termination of the tenancy are an abuse of process and struck out.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing. Ms Brassey did not join the video meeting and could not be contacted by telephone.
The landlord has applied for termination of the tenancy and rent arrears.
At the hearing, convened this morning, Mr Sharma did not provide the complete background to his applications. That is unfortunate as the background is entirely relevant to the outcome of this order and set out below.
On 9 March 2026 the Tribunal made an order directing Mr Sharma to pay Ms Brassey $25,882.20 in compensation for various breaches of the RTA.
Mr Sharma’s late cross application for rent arrears and compensatory and exemplary damages (including for rubbish removal costs) was dismissed. In relation to the rent arrears claim the Tribunal noting that the landlord had not provided accurate rent records and that the tenant had disproved the amount owing.
The Tribunal also ordered that Mr Sharma carry out extensive remedial work at the premises by 22 March 2026 and that the rent would abate by up to $475 per week from 9 March 2026 until the various required work ordered was completed, the tenant’s bond lodged, and accurate rent records provided.
Mr Sharma applied for a rehearing of the 9/3/2026 order and stay of proceedings in relation to that order. His applications were dismissed “on the papers”.
The Tribunal noting that if Mr Sharma disagreed with the Tribunals findings of fact or application of the law, then this was grounds for appeal and not re- hearing and specifically that a re-hearing was not an opportunity for Mr Sharma to provide better evidence to support his claims (including for rent arrears and rubbish removal costs), when that evidence could and should have been provided at the hearing.
Mr Sharma lodged an appeal against the Tribunal Order and requested the District Court stay enforcement of the 9 March 2026 order. The tenant opposed the application for leave to appeal and the application for a stay.
On 1 May 2026, His Honour, Judge Clark declined the application for a stay noting that none of the grounds cited by Mr Sharma justified the granting of a stay of proceedings.
Mr Sharma’s appeal will be considered in due course.
Despite this background Mr Sharma has reapplied for rent arrears owing from the commencement of the tenancy, rubbish removal costs and termination of the tenancy. His application failed to refer to the previous Tribunal decisions and the Appeal currently lodged, and he did not raise these issues at the hearing this morning. He confirmed that the bond remained unlodged.
That is a significant omission as the previous orders are entirely relevant to this decision to strike out Mr Sharma’s claims as an abuse of process.
The Tribunal declines to consider again Mr Sharma’s claims. These are matters that the Tribunal has already adjudicated and furthermore has declined to reconsider by way of rehearing. The appeal against the Tribunal’s findings that rent arrears/compensation and termination of the tenancy, could not be awarded is currently before the District Court on appeal.
It would therefore be entirely inappropriate to reconsider the issue of rent arrears and termination, at least until the District Court has issued its decision.
Section 92A RTA confirms that the Tribunal may strike out proceedings, in whole or in part, a proceeding if satisfied that it (a) discloses no reasonable cause of action; or (b) is likely to cause prejudice or delay; or (c) is frivolous or vexatious; or (d) is otherwise an abuse of process.
In considering whether proceedings are an abuse of process The Court of Appeal in Craig v Stringer [2020] NZCA 260 said this: [16] 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 relitigation of the same cause of action in any subsequent proceedings. Res judicata can also apply where there has been a determination in earlier proceedings between the same parties or their privies of an issue that was essential to the determination of the claim such that the judgment could not stand without it — issue estoppel. Issue estoppel is narrower, and less absolute in its application than cause of action estoppel.
As the issues have been previously determined in tribunal orders and are the subject of an appeal to the District Court they are struck out. The landlord is prevented from simply filing another claim seeking to relitigate the same issues as that is an abuse of process.
Neither party requested name suppression, so no orders are made. While the Tribunal considered supressing the tenant’s name at its own volition, she did not attend the hearing to make that request and did not request name suppression in relation to the 9/3/2026 Tribunal order either.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5488668 — Rent arrears at 1 Wilson Road, Dairy Flat, RD 2, Dairy Flat 0792

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5488668 — Rent arrears at 1 Wilson Road, Dairy Flat, RD 2, Dairy Flat 0792

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions