COOK v HOUSING NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION [2017] NZHC 3202

COOK v HOUSING NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION [2017] NZHC 3202 [18 December 2017]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECIV-2017-404-001118[2017] NZHC 3202BETWEEN DESMOND WILLIAM COOKAppellantAND HOUSING NEW ZEALANDCORPORATIONRespondentHearing: On the papersCounsel: Appellant in personF J Cuncannon and K R-A Muirhead for respondentJudgment: 18 December 2017JUDGMENT OF KATZ JThis judgment was delivered by me on 18 December 2017 at 4:30 pmPursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court RulesRegistrar/Deputy RegistrarSolicitors: Meredith Connell, AucklandCopy to: D Cook, AppellantIntroduction[1] In 2016 Desmond Cook took a claim against his landlord, HousingNew Zealand Corporation ("HNZ"), to the Tenancy Tribunal ("Tribunal"). TheTribunal dismissed his claim.[2] Mr Cook appealed to the District Court. His appeal was dismissed byJudge G M Harrison.[3] Mr Cook then appealed to this Court. Any party to an appeal from a decisionof the Tribunal to the District Court can only take a further appeal to the High Courton a question of law.1 I found that Mr Cook had failed to establish any error of lawon the part of the Judge, and dismissed his appeal.[4] Mr Cook now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. In essence, he saysthat Judge Harrison's decision not to admit into evidence further documents that werenot before the Tribunal was in error and that this Court failed to adequately correctthat error. In his view, this Court should have remitted the matter back to the Tribunalor to the District Court, for further consideration in light of the new evidence.Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal[5] Because this is a third-tier appeal subject to the Residential Tenancies Act1986, I may grant leave if, in my opinion, the appeal involves a question of law that,because of its general or public importance or for any other reasons, ought to besubmitted to the Court of Appeal for decision.2 This is a high threshold. It is not thefunction of the Court of Appeal in this context to make any general corrections oferror.31 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 119.2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 120.3 Cook v Housing New Zealand Corporation [2014] NZCA 504 at [3], citing Waller v Hider [1998]1 NZLR 412 (CA) at 413.[6] Mr Cook was a tenant in one of four adjoining HNZ units. The complex hasparking spaces for four vehicles. By agreement with HNZ, Mr Cook parked rightoutside of his unit to accommodate his serious health issues. To his annoyance,however, other tenants would use more than one of the available parking spaces,including by allowing non-tenants to park in one of them. Mr Cook's evidence wasthat this made it difficult for him to turn his vehicle around, meaning he had to backout rather than driving out of the driveway forwards.[7] Mr Cook claimed, unsuccessfully, in the Tribunal that his right toquiet enjoyment of his unit had been breached. The Tribunal's decision was upheldby Judge Harrison in the District Court, who declined to admit into evidence furtherdocuments relating to the appeal, including trespass notice papers, police statementsand photos.[8] I upheld Judge Harrison's decision. On the issue of admitting further evidence,I concluded that the Judge had not erred by declining to exercise his discretion to admitthe relevant documents. In any event, I reviewed the additional documentation andconcluded that there was nothing in them that would have altered the outcome of theproceedings. Rather, the documents reinforced matters that were generally not indispute, relating to the carparking habits of other tenants of the complex.[9] I am not satisfied that the issues Mr Cook wishes to raise in a further appealcarry any broader relevance beyond his case. Judge Harrison had a discretion as towhether or not to admit further evidence on the appeal. His decision not to do so wasopen to him. It does not raise any issue of law, let alone one that is of general or publicimportance. Third-tier appeals from the Tribunal are rare and there is certainly nothingin this case that suggests that the interests of justice favour a third appeal hearing.[10] The Residential Tenancies Act emphasises finality in decision-making andleaves open the possibility of an appeal to the Court of Appeal only where that isjustified in the public interest or in the interests of justice generally. This is not sucha case.Request for a transcript of the hearing[11] Mr Cook has requested a written transcript of the submissions made during thehearing in this Court. Because of the time and expense involved in preparing atranscript of an oral hearing, transcripts are not prepared as a matter of course.4 TheSupreme Court has emphasised that transcripts should be prepared only where thereis good reason in the interests of justice for directing so.5[12] I have declined Mr Cook's application for leave to appeal and accordingly atranscript will not be necessary for the purposes of any further appeal. Indeed, evenif there were to be a further appeal, I see no reason why a transcript would benecessary, given the nature of the issues that Mr Cook wishes to pursue on appeal.Rather, the focus of any further appeal would necessarily have to be on the decisionsof the Tribunal, the District Court and this Court, respectively.Result[13] The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. The request for a transcriptof the appeal hearing in this Court is declined.[14] HNZ is entitled to costs on a 2B basis in respect of the notice of opposition itfiled to Mr Cook's application for leave to appeal.____________________________Katz J4 Mackenzie v Attorney-General [2016] NZCA 24 at [22].5 Siemer v Heron [2011] NZSC 116, [2012] 1 NZLR 293 at [9].