What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5496344 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the respondents’ names and identifying

How much money was awarded in case 5496344?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5496344?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5496344?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13865418-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5496344 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the respondents’ names and identifying

How much money was awarded in case 5496344?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5496344?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5496344?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13865418-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5496344 — Rent arrears

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the respondents’ names and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the tenant against the landlord, property manager, and officers of the property manager. The tenant seeks a range of orders.
The landlord has raised issues that these further applications are an attempt to relitigate earlier disputes considered by the Tribunal, which will be the first matter to consider.

BACKGROUND

The background in this case is extensive, but I will summarise it only.
The tenancy commenced in November 2020, although the precise date of commencement is disputed by the tenant.
The landlord issued rent increase notices in February 2022 and February 2023, the tenant disputes the lawfulness of those increases. Ultimately, the tenant did not increase her rent payments, which resulted in rent arrears developing.
The landlord applied to terminate the tenancy because of the rent arrears, and a termination was ordered by the Tribunal on 12 July 2023. Again the tenant strongly disputes that order.
When the tenant did not leave the premises as she was required to do given the Tribunal’s order, the landlord applied for an eviction. The police were involved with that process, during which the tenant was detained to allow the bailiffs to complete the eviction process.
Once the landlord regained possession of the premises, the goods in the tenancy were placed in storage, and it is the case that the landlord made significant efforts to have the goods returned to the tenant, but she obstructed the goods being returned, although I understand some five boxes of goods were uplifted. I understand that the tenant objected to collecting her goods, because she believes that she was wrongly evicted, so should be able to move back into the tenancy with those goods being returned there.
The landlord applied for and received orders for compensation and for the collection / disposal of tenant goods, that was issued on 7 December 2023.
The tenant then filed her own application against the landlord. That is application number 4796117. At that point I was appointed the adjudicator for that dispute.
I convened a hearing in [Location suppressed] on 13 August 2024, and issued a decision that same day. In that proceeding, I considered the following tenant applications: a. A claim that the rent increase notices were flawed or invalid. b. Whether the landlord had properly managed and disposed of tenant goods. c. Whether the landlords had unlawfully entered the tenant’s premises. d. A request that the Tribunal grant possession of the premises back to the tenant.
That order carried a right of rehearing and appeal, but neither was exercised by the tenant. Current application
On 27 April 2026 the tenant filed this current application with the Tribunal. I will set out the grounds of the claim below.
A hearing was scheduled for today, 7 July 2026.
In advance of the hearing, the landlord forwarded a written submission that this is a case of the tenant seeking to relitigate already determined matters. The landlord otherwise confirmed they would not be attending the hearing.
At the hearing today, only Ms Ropiha and her daughter were in attendance.

TENANTS CASE

The claims now advanced by Mr Ropiha in the current application are extensive, and can be summarised as follows: a. Compensation for a claimed fraudulent eviction process. b. Orders in relation to the property manager misleading the Tribunal, and submitting false or misleading evidence. c. A falsified tenancy commencement date advanced by the property manager (being 3 days early), and thereby presenting a fraudulent rent ledger. d. An unlawful rent increase during the tenancy. e. An unlawful eviction resulting in the loss of a home and household property in excess of $100,000. f. Continued failure on the part of the property manager to correct errors in relation to the tenancy agreement. g. Exemplary damages for the property manager’s intentional and repeated breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). h. Exemplary damages for an intentional and unlawful rent increase. i. Exemplary damages for submitting bad faith evidence, and around the eviction process. j. An order setting aside the previous Tribunal order from 13 August 2024, which had been obtained by deception. k. An order reinstating the tenancy, and reversing the eviction. l. An order correcting the property managers records. m. An order that the landlord return the applicants’ goods and two vehicles.
The respondents to this application are: a. [The tenant/s] property manager/s] b. [The tenant/s] property manager/s] c. [The tenant/s] property manager/s] d. [The tenant/s] landlord/s]
At the hearing, I asked Ms Ropiha what her response was to the property manager’s position, that the current application is simply an attempt to relitigate the earlier disputes. Ms Ropiha did not agree that was the case, explaining that she has very strong views around what has occurred, and her belief that she should continue to be entitled to possession of the tenancy.

ANALYSIS

What this dispute boils down to, is that Ms Ropiha has very strong views that she has been wronged in a number of ways. Ms Ropiha considers that the landlord has acted unlawfully in relation to the increasing of her rent, and from that, the process around which she was evicted from the Tenancy was manifestly wrong. Ms Ropiha also has significant grievances around the tribunal process, in which she does not consider she has been fairly heard.
The property manager has submitted that the current claims are an attempt to relitigate the dispute which has earlier been heard and concluded by the Tribunal. In cases where a party argues that the matter has already been decided, that is the first matter the court or Tribunal will consider.
There is an expectation of finality in litigation. A party who has had a dispute finally determined is not entitled to bring further proceedings seeking to have the same claim determined again. Nor may a party ordinarily re-litigate an issue of fact or law that was necessarily determined in the earlier proceeding.
The principle of finality extends beyond matters that were expressly determined. The Tribunal may prevent a party from pursuing, in later proceedings, a claim or issue that properly formed part of the earlier dispute, and could or should reasonably have been raised at that time.
There is also a long-standing principle in law, known as the principle of Henderson v Henderson, which in effect means a party cannot bring another claim, when it could have been brought earlier. This was a decision from 1843 but remains relevant in law today. In that case Wigram VC said: 1 Where a given matter becomes the subject of litigation in, and adjudication by, a court of competent jurisdiction, the Court required the parties to that litigation to bring forward their whole case, and will not (except under special circumstances) permit the same parties to open the same subject of litigation in respect of matters which might have been brought forward as part of the subject in contest, but which was not brought forward, only because they have, from negligence, inadvertence, or even accident, omitted part of the case. The plea of res judicata applies, except in special cases, not only to the points upon which the Court was actually required by the parties to form an opinion and pronounce a judgment, but to every point which properly belonged to the subject of litigation, in which the parties, exercising reasonable diligence, might have brought forward at the time.
The question is one of substance rather than form. It is not sufficient that the present application is expressed differently, relies on a different legal characterisation, or seeks a different remedy. The Tribunal must consider whether the claim has already been determined, or whether it is a matter that properly should have been advanced as part of the earlier proceeding.
In the present case, the claims now advanced concerns the same factual circumstances that were the subject of the earlier tenant application before the Tribunal. Ms Ropiha knew of, and was able to raise those matters at the time of the earlier hearing before myself on 13 August 2024.
I agree with the property manager, that what Ms Ropiha is seeking to do, is to relitigate matters that have previously been considered by the Tribunal, or could have been advanced with the tenants’ earlier application, and for that reason I cannot consider those matters now.
I recognise that Ms Ropiha considers that the early decision was wrong for various reasons. Of course that is an interpretation she is able to make, but the decision of the Tribunal issued in August 2024 is final, and it is binding on both parties. If Ms Ropiha wished to have the decision overturned, she had a right of appeal, but that was not exercised. What that means, is that the August 2024 decision remains, and the Tribunal cannot reconsider that again. 1 Henderson v Henderson [1843] 3 HARE 100
For those reasons, the current application is dismissed.

NAME SUPPRESSION

Name suppression for the landlord has been ordered in the previous hearings, that name suppression order is to continue, and will apply for all respondents.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application filed by the tenant against the landlord, property manager, and officers of the property manager. The tenant seeks a range of orders.

The landlord has raised issues that these further applications are an attempt to relitigate earlier disputes considered by the Tribunal, which will be the first matter to consider.

BACKGROUND

The background in this case is extensive, but I will summarise it only.

The tenancy commenced in November 2020, although the precise date of commencement is disputed by the tenant.

The landlord issued rent increase notices in February 2022 and February 2023, the tenant disputes the lawfulness of those increases. Ultimately, the tenant did not increase her rent payments, which resulted in rent arrears developing.

The landlord applied to terminate the tenancy because of the rent arrears, and a termination was ordered by the Tribunal on 12 July 2023. Again the tenant strongly disputes that order.

When the tenant did not leave the premises as she was required to do given the Tribunal’s order, the landlord applied for an eviction. The police were involved with that process, during which the tenant was detained to allow the bailiffs to complete the eviction process.

Once the landlord regained possession of the premises, the goods in the tenancy were placed in storage, and it is the case that the landlord made significant efforts to have the goods returned to the tenant, but she obstructed the goods being returned, although I understand some five boxes of goods were uplifted. I understand that the tenant objected to collecting her goods, because she believes that she was wrongly evicted, so should be able to move back into the tenancy with those goods being returned there.

The landlord applied for and received orders for compensation and for the collection / disposal of tenant goods, that was issued on 7 December 2023.

The tenant then filed her own application against the landlord. That is application number 4796117. At that point I was appointed the adjudicator for that dispute.

I convened a hearing in [Location suppressed] on 13 August 2024, and issued a decision that same day. In that proceeding, I considered the following tenant applications: a. A claim that the rent increase notices were flawed or invalid. b. Whether the landlord had properly managed and disposed of tenant goods. c. Whether the landlords had unlawfully entered the tenant’s premises. d. A request that the Tribunal grant possession of the premises back to the tenant.

That order carried a right of rehearing and appeal, but neither was exercised by the tenant. Current application

On 27 April 2026 the tenant filed this current application with the Tribunal. I will set out the grounds of the claim below.

A hearing was scheduled for today, 7 July 2026.

In advance of the hearing, the landlord forwarded a written submission that this is a case of the tenant seeking to relitigate already determined matters. The landlord otherwise confirmed they would not be attending the hearing.

At the hearing today, only Ms Ropiha and her daughter were in attendance.

TENANTS CASE

The claims now advanced by Mr Ropiha in the current application are extensive, and can be summarised as follows: a. Compensation for a claimed fraudulent eviction process. b. Orders in relation to the property manager misleading the Tribunal, and submitting false or misleading evidence. c. A falsified tenancy commencement date advanced by the property manager (being 3 days early), and thereby presenting a fraudulent rent ledger. d. An unlawful rent increase during the tenancy. e. An unlawful eviction resulting in the loss of a home and household property in excess of $100,000. f. Continued failure on the part of the property manager to correct errors in relation to the tenancy agreement. g. Exemplary damages for the property manager’s intentional and repeated breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). h. Exemplary damages for an intentional and unlawful rent increase. i. Exemplary damages for submitting bad faith evidence, and around the eviction process. j. An order setting aside the previous Tribunal order from 13 August 2024, which had been obtained by deception. k. An order reinstating the tenancy, and reversing the eviction. l. An order correcting the property managers records. m. An order that the landlord return the applicants’ goods and two vehicles.

The respondents to this application are: a. [The tenant/s] property manager/s] b. [The tenant/s] property manager/s] c. [The tenant/s] property manager/s] d. [The tenant/s] landlord/s]

At the hearing, I asked Ms Ropiha what her response was to the property manager’s position, that the current application is simply an attempt to relitigate the earlier disputes. Ms Ropiha did not agree that was the case, explaining that she has very strong views around what has occurred, and her belief that she should continue to be entitled to possession of the tenancy.

ANALYSIS

What this dispute boils down to, is that Ms Ropiha has very strong views that she has been wronged in a number of ways. Ms Ropiha considers that the landlord has acted unlawfully in relation to the increasing of her rent, and from that, the process around which she was evicted from the Tenancy was manifestly wrong. Ms Ropiha also has significant grievances around the tribunal process, in which she does not consider she has been fairly heard.

The property manager has submitted that the current claims are an attempt to relitigate the dispute which has earlier been heard and concluded by the Tribunal. In cases where a party argues that the matter has already been decided, that is the first matter the court or Tribunal will consider.

There is an expectation of finality in litigation. A party who has had a dispute finally determined is not entitled to bring further proceedings seeking to have the same claim determined again. Nor may a party ordinarily re-litigate an issue of fact or law that was necessarily determined in the earlier proceeding.

The principle of finality extends beyond matters that were expressly determined. The Tribunal may prevent a party from pursuing, in later proceedings, a claim or issue that properly formed part of the earlier dispute, and could or should reasonably have been raised at that time.

There is also a long-standing principle in law, known as the principle of Henderson v Henderson, which in effect means a party cannot bring another claim, when it could have been brought earlier. This was a decision from 1843 but remains relevant in law today. In that case Wigram VC said: 1 Where a given matter becomes the subject of litigation in, and adjudication by, a court of competent jurisdiction, the Court required the parties to that litigation to bring forward their whole case, and will not (except under special circumstances) permit the same parties to open the same subject of litigation in respect of matters which might have been brought forward as part of the subject in contest, but which was not brought forward, only because they have, from negligence, inadvertence, or even accident, omitted part of the case. The plea of res judicata applies, except in special cases, not only to the points upon which the Court was actually required by the parties to form an opinion and pronounce a judgment, but to every point which properly belonged to the subject of litigation, in which the parties, exercising reasonable diligence, might have brought forward at the time.

The question is one of substance rather than form. It is not sufficient that the present application is expressed differently, relies on a different legal characterisation, or seeks a different remedy. The Tribunal must consider whether the claim has already been determined, or whether it is a matter that properly should have been advanced as part of the earlier proceeding.

In the present case, the claims now advanced concerns the same factual circumstances that were the subject of the earlier tenant application before the Tribunal. Ms Ropiha knew of, and was able to raise those matters at the time of the earlier hearing before myself on 13 August 2024.

I agree with the property manager, that what Ms Ropiha is seeking to do, is to relitigate matters that have previously been considered by the Tribunal, or could have been advanced with the tenants’ earlier application, and for that reason I cannot consider those matters now.

I recognise that Ms Ropiha considers that the early decision was wrong for various reasons. Of course that is an interpretation she is able to make, but the decision of the Tribunal issued in August 2024 is final, and it is binding on both parties. If Ms Ropiha wished to have the decision overturned, she had a right of appeal, but that was not exercised. What that means, is that the August 2024 decision remains, and the Tribunal cannot reconsider that again. 1 Henderson v Henderson [1843] 3 HARE 100

For those reasons, the current application is dismissed.

NAME SUPPRESSION

Name suppression for the landlord has been ordered in the previous hearings, that name suppression order is to continue, and will apply for all respondents.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5496344 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5496344 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

TENANTS CASE

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

TENANTS CASE

ANALYSIS

NAME SUPPRESSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.