What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5502929 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application is withdrawn.

How much money was awarded in case 5502929?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5502929?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5502929?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14054299-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5502929 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application is withdrawn.

How much money was awarded in case 5502929?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5502929?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5502929?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14054299-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

9 Bernard Street, Addington, Christchurch 8024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5502929 — Rent arrears

Order

The landlord’s application is withdrawn.
The tenant’s application is struck out.

Reasons

These applications were scheduled for hearing today.
Yesterday, the tenant sought an adjournment of the hearing. He states that he has a double booking in the Tribunal that he has just become aware of; that he is engaged in settlement discussions with the landlord; that he has clearance from the Official Assignee (OA) to pursue his claim against the landlord; that he wants to file a ‘reduced and refined’ claim against the landlord; and that he seeks a stay of proceedings of the possession order previously made by the Tribunal.
I declined the application for an adjournment and directed that the parties attend the hearing today in person
The tenant sent further emails to the registry. He again refers to another proceeding in the Tenancy Tribunal ‘with all lawyers present’ scheduled at the same time as this hearing. And he states that ‘the proceedings today would be very costly’.
He requests that his application be combined with the District Court appeal he has filed.
My direction that the hearing proceed with the parties present remained; I issued no further direction nor did I adjourn the applications. Nor did the tenant provide any details of the alleged conflicting hearing. The registrar’s search of the Tribunal’s scheduled hearings for today did not identify any proceedings involving this tenant. Background
I will provide a brief background summary of these applications the substance of which has become confused.
On 8 June 2026, the Tribunal issued an order on the landlord’s application granting possession of the premises to BDO Christchurch Limited 1 . I note here that the applications have referred to BDO Christchurch Limited as the landlord party incorrectly; the landlord is correctly described as KI Commercial Limited (In receivership). I have amended the applications to reflect that.
The Tribunal adjourned the hearing of the landlord’s claim for rent arrears and the balance of the tenant’s claim against the landlord with this direction:
The Tribunal has therefore considered striking out the tenant’s application. However, it is appropriate that the tenant be given an opportunity to obtain the Official Assignee’s written consent to the tenant’s application before this step is taken.
The tenant applied for a rehearing of the Tribunal’s order granting the landlord possession of the premises. The Tribunal issued a decision on the papers dismissing the application for rehearing 2 .
The tenant filed an appeal against that decision. That issue is currently before the District Court.
The Tribunal scheduled the tenant’s application and the remainder of the landlord’s application (rent arrears) for hearing today. The Notices of Hearing were dated 16 July 2026. 1 See [2026] NZTT 5502929; 5510053 8.6.26 2 See [2026] NZTT 5502929 19.6.29
As he has done previously, the tenant waited until the day before the scheduled hearing to apply for an adjournment.
Today, Mr Roberts appeared for the landlord party. He submitted that the tenant’s application should be struck out because he had not complied with the Tribunal’s previous written direction that he provide written consent from the OA to bring the proceedings.
Mr Roberts said that the landlord was prepared to withdraw its application (that being the basis of the settlement discussion the tenant referred to) but the tenant would not agree to abandon his claim. Discussion
The tenant appears to be confused about the nature of the current proceedings and his District Court appeal.
The appeal is solely against the Tribunal’s decision declining to grant his application for rehearing. If the appeal fails, his challenge to the possession order cannot progress any further.
If the appeal is allowed, the only issue to be reheard is the landlord’s application for termination and possession orders.
The balance of the tenant’s application was subject to him providing the OA’s written consent for him the bring proceedings for a monetary claim against the landlord. The tenant has not provided any written consent from the OA despite being on notice that the Tribunal required that as mentioned in the order dated 8 June 2026 (para 43).
The landlord has a valid possession order that it can enforce. Were there to be any stay application by the tenant, he would need to request the stay from the District Court since the issue of the possession order (or the Tribunal’s refusal to allow a rehearing of the order granting the landlord possession) is now before that Court.
Until such time as a stay is granted, enforcement action can proceed, notwithstanding that the tenant has filed an appeal against the Tribunal’s decision declining to grant a rehearing. Even if granted, the only issue to be reheard would be the landlord’s application for a possession order.
The tenant appears confused when he suggests that the other issues raised in his application should be combined with his existing appeal. The matters are distinct. The only decision made to date was the one granting the landlord possession. The remaining issues would have required a decision by the Tribunal, before they could progress to the District Court.
The tenant’s failure to provide the OA’s written consent as he was required to do means that his application is now stuck out. The Tribunal granted him an indulgence last time, but its direction was clear. He has had ample time to obtain the OA’s written consent to bring proceedings for a monetary claim but has failed to do so.
Mr Roberts said that the landlord was prepared to drop its claim against the tenant for rent arrears if his application were struck out.
By withdrawing the application, the landlord’s position is protected because it can make the application again, should the tenant apply successfully for a rehearing or an appeal of the strike out order. Result
The landlord’s application is withdrawn.
The tenant’s application for orders, including monetary orders, is struck out.

Order

The landlord’s application is withdrawn.
The tenant’s application is struck out.

Reasons

These applications were scheduled for hearing today.
Yesterday, the tenant sought an adjournment of the hearing. He states that he has a double booking in the Tribunal that he has just become aware of; that he is engaged in settlement discussions with the landlord; that he has clearance from the Official Assignee (OA) to pursue his claim against the landlord; that he wants to file a ‘reduced and refined’ claim against the landlord; and that he seeks a stay of proceedings of the possession order previously made by the Tribunal.
I declined the application for an adjournment and directed that the parties attend the hearing today in person
The tenant sent further emails to the registry. He again refers to another proceeding in the Tenancy Tribunal ‘with all lawyers present’ scheduled at the same time as this hearing. And he states that ‘the proceedings today would be very costly’.
He requests that his application be combined with the District Court appeal he has filed.
My direction that the hearing proceed with the parties present remained; I issued no further direction nor did I adjourn the applications. Nor did the tenant provide any details of the alleged conflicting hearing. The registrar’s search of the Tribunal’s scheduled hearings for today did not identify any proceedings involving this tenant. Background
I will provide a brief background summary of these applications the substance of which has become confused.
On 8 June 2026, the Tribunal issued an order on the landlord’s application granting possession of the premises to BDO Christchurch Limited 1 . I note here that the applications have referred to BDO Christchurch Limited as the landlord party incorrectly; the landlord is correctly described as KI Commercial Limited (In receivership). I have amended the applications to reflect that.
The Tribunal adjourned the hearing of the landlord’s claim for rent arrears and the balance of the tenant’s claim against the landlord with this direction:
The Tribunal has therefore considered striking out the tenant’s application. However, it is appropriate that the tenant be given an opportunity to obtain the Official Assignee’s written consent to the tenant’s application before this step is taken.
The tenant applied for a rehearing of the Tribunal’s order granting the landlord possession of the premises. The Tribunal issued a decision on the papers dismissing the application for rehearing 2 .
The tenant filed an appeal against that decision. That issue is currently before the District Court.
The Tribunal scheduled the tenant’s application and the remainder of the landlord’s application (rent arrears) for hearing today. The Notices of Hearing were dated 16 July 2026. 1 See [2026] NZTT 5502929; 5510053 8.6.26 2 See [2026] NZTT 5502929 19.6.29
As he has done previously, the tenant waited until the day before the scheduled hearing to apply for an adjournment.
Today, Mr Roberts appeared for the landlord party. He submitted that the tenant’s application should be struck out because he had not complied with the Tribunal’s previous written direction that he provide written consent from the OA to bring the proceedings.
Mr Roberts said that the landlord was prepared to withdraw its application (that being the basis of the settlement discussion the tenant referred to) but the tenant would not agree to abandon his claim. Discussion
The tenant appears to be confused about the nature of the current proceedings and his District Court appeal.
The appeal is solely against the Tribunal’s decision declining to grant his application for rehearing. If the appeal fails, his challenge to the possession order cannot progress any further.
If the appeal is allowed, the only issue to be reheard is the landlord’s application for termination and possession orders.
The balance of the tenant’s application was subject to him providing the OA’s written consent for him the bring proceedings for a monetary claim against the landlord. The tenant has not provided any written consent from the OA despite being on notice that the Tribunal required that as mentioned in the order dated 8 June 2026 (para 43).
The landlord has a valid possession order that it can enforce. Were there to be any stay application by the tenant, he would need to request the stay from the District Court since the issue of the possession order (or the Tribunal’s refusal to allow a rehearing of the order granting the landlord possession) is now before that Court.
Until such time as a stay is granted, enforcement action can proceed, notwithstanding that the tenant has filed an appeal against the Tribunal’s decision declining to grant a rehearing. Even if granted, the only issue to be reheard would be the landlord’s application for a possession order.
The tenant appears confused when he suggests that the other issues raised in his application should be combined with his existing appeal. The matters are distinct. The only decision made to date was the one granting the landlord possession. The remaining issues would have required a decision by the Tribunal, before they could progress to the District Court.
The tenant’s failure to provide the OA’s written consent as he was required to do means that his application is now stuck out. The Tribunal granted him an indulgence last time, but its direction was clear. He has had ample time to obtain the OA’s written consent to bring proceedings for a monetary claim but has failed to do so.
Mr Roberts said that the landlord was prepared to drop its claim against the tenant for rent arrears if his application were struck out.
By withdrawing the application, the landlord’s position is protected because it can make the application again, should the tenant apply successfully for a rehearing or an appeal of the strike out order. Result
The landlord’s application is withdrawn.
The tenant’s application for orders, including monetary orders, is struck out.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5502929 — Rent arrears at 9 Bernard Street, Addington, Christchurch 8024

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5502929 — Rent arrears at 9 Bernard Street, Addington, Christchurch 8024

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.