18 May 2022
Leave to appeal out of time was refused because the mandatory statutory threshold in s 55(1) RTA applied given the tenant's substantial arrears, the tenant failed to comply with Tribunal and District Court directions or provide verifiable proof that would attract the s 55(2) exception, and there was no realistic prospect of success or of restoring the tenancy.
10 Dec 2019
Both proposed questions fail the s 120(2) threshold: the first assumes factual findings inconsistent with prior findings that the original notice was defective and therefore is not a seriously arguable question of law; the second is resolved by s 109 which requires intentional commission of an unlawful act and does not add a separate legal requirement of 'flagrant' conduct, and the Tribunal made adequate factual findings supporting the exemplary damages award; therefore leave to appeal is declined.
8 Nov 2019
The Court held Marphona failed to discharge the onus for summary judgment because NYX was holding over under an express contractual periodic tenancy (clause 36.1) rather than solely as a statutory tenant under s210, there were material factual disputes (including an asserted agreement deferring rent pending a Code Compliance Certificate and whether re-entry occurred within the notice period), and Marphona's pleadings and evidence on rent and repair costs were inadequate; accordingly summary judgment was dismissed.
8 Mar 2019
The application for special leave was declined because the proposed grounds did not raise a seriously arguable question of law: s 78(1)(f) applies to contractual powers not statutory powers, s85 does not create jurisdiction, s51 permits 90‑day notices without justification, and the High Court's factual finding that the tenant consented to testing was not a challengeable question of law.
26 Sept 2017
HCNZ's s 43 letters were contradictory and therefore non-compliant but the non-compliance related to identification and would only affect tenant obligations to pay rent until clear notice was given; Tamaki Housing's s 15 letters did not identify TRL and one was sent before acquisition but those defects did not invalidate TRL's later lawful termination because TRL became owner on 1 April 2016 and Tamaki Housing validly acted as TRL's agent to serve the termination; accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
28 Jul 2017
Although the District Court was entitled to refuse a stay because the appeal had very little prospect of success, the High Court allowed the appeal and granted a conditional stay because new material not before the District Court (the appellant's binding undertaking and an earlier available hearing date) changed the balance of justice; the stay was granted subject to strict filing deadlines and conduct conditions.
19 Jun 2015
HNZC was not required to determine the applicant's ongoing eligibility for social housing under the HR&TMA before issuing a valid s51(1)(d) 90 day termination notice under the RTA; actions under s58A and the HR&TMA appeal regime do not invalidate or modify HNZC's separate statutory power as landlord to terminate a tenancy by notice, and the Tenancy Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to convert HR&TMA review requirements into prerequisites to a s51 notice.
1 Apr 2015
The injunction was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate a seriously arguable enforceable long-term lease or sufficient certainty of terms to satisfy part performance; at best the arrangement was a periodic short-term tenancy terminable on 20 working days' notice, and on balance of convenience (including inability of applicant to provide credible undertaking as to damages and respondents' ability to meet damages) the interim relief was not justified.
10 Dec 2013
The alleged oral repurchase agreement was too vague and not in writing to create an interest in land; any short term lease under the PLA 2007 was validly terminated because written notice was given and more than 20 working days have passed; consequently the defendants have no legal basis to remain and the plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment for vacant possession and costs.
25 May 2010
No question of law of sufficient general public importance arose; the tenancy had been validly terminated (Tenancy Tribunal and District Court upheld termination under s55 for damage and a s51 90-day notice had expired); ACC payments did not create any ownership interest in Housing New Zealand property; accordingly leave to appeal under s67 was refused.