Application Dismissed for Want of Prosecution
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed an application because neither the landlord nor the tenant showed up for the hearing. The tenants had moved to Australia and notified the Tribunal of their absence. The landlord did not respond to the hearing notice.
⚖️ Legal holding
An application is dismissed for want of prosecution if the parties fail to attend the hearing.
📖 Technical summary
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed the application due to lack of prosecution.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed an application for want of prosecution after neither the landlord nor the tenant attended the hearing. The tenants had moved to Australia and informed the Tribunal of their absence. The landlord did not respond to the Tribunal's notice of hearing.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4865220 1
[2025] NZTT 4865220
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT MANUKAU | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA KI MANUKAU
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
The application is dismissed.
Reasons:
1. No one attended the hearing.
2. The tenants [NAME] and [NAME] emailed the Tribunal to say they would not be attending because they have moved to Australia.
3. The landlord has not contacted the Tribunal since the notice of hearing was sent out on 28 March 2025.
4. The application is dismissed for want of prosecution.
R Kee
29 April 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4865220 2
Please read carefully: Visit justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals for more information on rehearings and appeals.
Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has happened. For example: • you did not get the letter telling you the date of the hearing, or • the adjudicator improperly admitted or rejected evidence, or • new evidence, relating to the original application, has become available.
You must give reasons and evidence to support your application for a rehearing. A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. You must apply within five working days of the decision using the Application for Rehearing form: justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf
Right of Appeal Both the landlord and the tenant can file an appeal. You should file your appeal at the District Court where the original hearing took place. The cost for an appeal is $260. You must apply within 10 working days after the decision is issued using this Appeal to the District Court form: justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals
Grounds for an appeal You can appeal if you think the decision was wrong, but not because you don’t like the decision. For some cases, there’ll be no right to appeal. For example, you can’t appeal: • against an interim order • a final order for the payment of less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work worth less than $1000.
Enforcement Where the Tribunal made an order about money or property this is called a civil debt. The Ministry of Justice Collections Team can assist with enforcing civil debt. You can contact the collections team on [PHONE] or go to justice.govt.nz/fines/civil-debt for forms and information.
Notice to a party ordered to pay money or vacate premises, etc. Failure to comply with any order may result in substantial additional costs for enforcement. It may also involve being ordered to appear in the District Court for an examination of your means or seizure of your property.
If you require further help or information regarding this matter, visit tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing- decisions or phone Tenancy Services on [PHONE].
Mēna ka hiahia koe ki ētahi atu awhina, kōrero ranei mo tēnei take, haere ki tenei ipurangi tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, waea atu ki Ratonga Takirua ma runga [PHONE] ranei.
https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals/ https://www.justice.govt.nz/fines/about-civil-debt/ https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions http://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4865220 3
A manaomia nisi faamatalaga poo se fesoasoani, e uiga i lau mataupu, asiasi ifo le matou aupega tafailagi: tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, pe fesootai mai le Tenancy Services i le numera [PHONE].
Reasons:
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- No one attended the hearing.
- The tenants informed the Tribunal they had moved to Australia.
- The landlord did not contact the Tribunal after the notice of hearing was sent.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- There are no arguments presented by either party that were rejected by the court.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed the application for want of prosecution.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about a tenancy issue where the landlord filed an application against the tenant.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to dismiss the application because neither party attended the hearing and the landlord did not respond to the notice of hearing.
Which laws or rules were applied?
No specific laws or rules were mentioned in the judgment.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the failure of both parties to attend the hearing.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the landlord who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure they attend the hearing or provide a valid reason for their absence.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify any particular evidence or documents.