Tenancy Tribunal Strikes Out Refiled Claim for Previously Decided Items
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal at Papakura struck out a landlord's application because the claim had already been decided in a previous hearing. The landlord tried to file a new claim for the same items, but the application was dismissed.
⚖️ Legal holding
A landlord cannot refile a claim for the same items if the claim has already been decided.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant's application was struck out as the claim had already been decided in a previous hearing.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal at Papakura struck out the landlord's application as the claim had already been decided in a previous hearing. The landlord attempted to file a new claim for the same items, which was dismissed due to the prior determination.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4945354 1
[2025] NZTT 4945354
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT PAPAKURA | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA KI PAPAKURA
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. The application is struck out as this claim has already been decided.
Reasons:
1. [COMPANY] attended today’s hearing. The tenant did not attend.
2. The landlord is claiming $1300 for rubbish, cleaning, carpet cleaning and changing of locks for a tenancy that ended on the 8 February 2024. [COMPANY] was not the landlord during the tenancy.
3. The owner’s agent during the tenancy was [COMPANY]. They filed an application claiming the same amount for the same items under application 4814019. That application was heard on the 11 July 2024. The landlord did not attend and therefore the application was dismissed.
4. As the landlord’s claim for compensation has been determined under application 4814019 the landlord cannot refile a new claim (or claim again) for the same items.
5. If the landlord considers that there is a good reason that the landlord was unable to attend the hearing of 4814019, then the landlord should apply for a
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4945354 2
rehearing of that application. It is up to the adjudicator who determined that mater to decide if a rehearing should be granted or not.
6. I note that in the Tenancy Agreement it names [COMPANY] as agent for the owner but does not disclose the owner’s name. If the owner is claiming a rehearing, they will need to show that they are the owner, and that [NAME] was their property manager.
[NAME]
17 March 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4945354 3
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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4945354 4
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:
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal struck out the landlord's application because the claim had already been decided in a previous hearing.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about a landlord attempting to file a new claim for the same items that were previously decided.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to strike out the application because the landlord was trying to refile a claim for the same items that had already been decided in a previous 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 that the landlord's claim had already been decided in a previous 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 that they do not attempt to refile a claim for the same items that have already been decided.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify any particular evidence or documents that mattered.