Tenant's Claim Dismissed Due to Non-Attendance
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed the tenant's application because the tenant did not show up for the hearing. The landlord's cross-application was withdrawn.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant's application is dismissed if they fail to attend the hearing.
📖 What the law says
This rule states that if a party is properly notified of a hearing but does not show up, the Tenancy Tribunal can still decide the case, dismiss it, or postpone it without that party being present. In this case, the tenant's application was dismissed because they did not attend the hearing.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant's application was dismissed due to non-attendance and the respondent's cross-application was withdrawn.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed the tenant's application for failing to attend the hearing, despite the tenant's initial claim of breaches under the Residential Tenancies Act. The landlord's cross-application was subsequently withdrawn.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5152832 1
[2025] NZTT 5152832, 5175611
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT INVERCARGILL | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA KI WAIHŌPAI
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Tenant
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Landlord
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. Ms [NAME] application is dismissed.
2. [NAME]’s cross application is withdrawn.
Reasons:
1. There are cross applications set down before me today for half a day.
2. The application filed by [NAME] is for a $1000,000.00 claim against the landlord for alleged breaches of the Residential Tenancy Act, including failure to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards.
3. [NAME] contacted the Tribunal half an hour before its commencement confirming the phone number to be connected on. She failed to make herself available and did not attend the hearing at the scheduled time, See sections 78(1)(i) and 92(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Three attempts were made to telephone her and there was no answer. An attempt was made to also contact [NAME], the actual named tenant. She also failed to answer the phone.
4. As a result, the application is dismissed. However, I note, that [NAME] is in fact the mother of the named tenant in this tenancy. Therefore, there would arguably be a jurisdiction issue to be determined if the case proceeded. Whilst
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5152832 2
[NAME] stated she was, as he believed, the guarantor by promising to pay the rent, this is not stipulated in the tenancy agreement.
5. However, I am not required to determine the application given the failure of the applicant [NAME] to attend the hearing. The failure to attends requires me to strike out the application she filed.
6. [NAME] filed an application against the tenant [NAME] seeking costs for unlawful use of the premises, allegations of Methamphetamine use, rent arrears and other costs.
7. [NAME] claimed for costs in relation to monies he advanced to the tenant for her to fix and remedy issues in the home that were never carried out.
8. Given the fact that neither [NAME] not [NAME] made themselves available, and the belief that [NAME] has that regardless of the outcome of the tribunal he would not receive payment, he withdrew his application.
9. In relation to the bond, I wish to record that I was advised that WINZ paid a bond on behalf of the tenant [NAME] direct. This was on the basis that the tenant and [NAME] had an agreement that she would use this money herself to make the necessary repairs and maintenance to the property. Again, the evidence is that the repairs were not carried out. This is not the purpose to the bond. The bond is a payment made to the bond centre that protects both parties.
10. Given the above, this brings the two applications in relation to this tenancy to an end.
S Munro
28 April 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5152832 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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5152832 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 tenant's application was dismissed for non-attendance, and the landlord's cross-application was withdrawn.
What was the dispute about?
The tenant claimed the landlord breached the Residential Tenancies Act, including failure to comply with healthy homes standards.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to dismiss the tenant's application because they did not attend the hearing, as required by the Residential Tenancies Act.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Sections 78(1)(i) and 92(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The tenant's failure to attend the hearing was the critical factor in dismissing their application.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the person who brought the case, the tenant.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure they attend all hearings to avoid having their application dismissed.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify any particular evidence or documents
