Baldock v Kāinga Ora - Homes and Communities

[2025] NZHC 695

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2025-404-000688

[2025] NZHC 695

UNDER

the Residential Tenancies Act 1986

BETWEEN

GAEL JOY BALDOCK

Appellant

AND

KĀINGA ORA - HOMES AND COMMUNITIES

Respondent

Hearing:

28 March 2025 (by teleconference)

Appearances:

B D Hayes for Appellant

H Botha and E McDowell for Respondent

Judgment:

28 March 2025

JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

This judgment was delivered by me on 28 March 2025 at 11.30 am, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Solicitors:           Teei & Associates, Henderson

Meredith Connell, Auckland

Counsel:            Barry D Hayes, Barrister, Henderson, Auckland

BALDOCK v KĀINGA ORA - HOMES AND COMMUNITIES [2025] NZHC 695 [28 March 2025]

[1]                Gael Baldock seeks leave to extend the time to appeal a decision of the District Court declining her application for stay and to appeal that decision.

Background

[2]                The issues on this application and the appeal before the District Court have been before the Tenancy Tribunal and latterly the District Court from as early as October 2023.

[3]                On 5 November 2024, the Tenancy Tribunal made an order terminating Ms Baldock’s tenancy and a related possession order in accordance with ss 64 and 53B (s 53B now repealed) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

[4]                Ms Baldock sought to appeal that decision to the District Court and in the meantime applied for a stay of execution of the Tribunal orders. She also applied for a rehearing which the Tenancy Tribunal declined on 5 February 2025.

[5]                Ms Baldock’s application for a stay was declined by Judge Sharp on the papers on 11 February 2025.1

[6]                Ms Baldock’s substantive appeal is scheduled for hearing in the District Court on 15 April 2025.

[7]                In the meantime the matter came before the District Court again on 12 March 2025. Judge Davenport noted there was no jurisdiction for her to deal substantively with the matter but she made a number of procedural orders, including extending the 90 day time limit for enforcing the 5 November 2024 termination and possession order to run from 3 March 2025.

[8]                Following that hearing the respondent issued a letter to Ms Baldock on 14 March 2025 giving notice to her to move out of the property by 5.00 pm, 28 March 2025.

1      Baldock v Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities DC Auckland CIV-2025-004-000275, 11 February 2025.

[9]                Against that background the application for leave to appeal the stay decision and to appeal it was filed urgently by Mr Hayes on Ms Baldock’s behalf and referred to me as Duty Judge.

[10]            After hearing from Mr Hayes for Ms Baldock and Ms Botha and Ms McDowell for the respondent I made the following orders:

(a)granting leave to Ms Baldock to extend the time to appeal the decision of the District Court regarding a stay; and

(b)granting a stay of the order terminating her tenancy and requiring her to deliver up vacant possession until a decision is issued by the District Court following the hearing on 15 April 2025.

[11]            I reserve leave to the respondent to revisit the issue of stay if for any reason the hearing does not proceed on 15 April or there are any other relevant developments.

[12]            I made those orders despite acknowledging the force of the submissions for the respondent as to the prospective merits of the appeal primarily for the following reasons that follow.

[13]            First, the Residential Tenancies Act provides for a right of substantive appeal to the District Court. If this application is not granted Ms Baldock’s right of appeal will be rendered nugatory as the appeal is not to be heard until 15 April 2025.

[14]            Next, the time period from now until 15 April when the appeal will be heard is relatively short, just over two weeks. While I acknowledge Ms Botha’s point that a house is being held for Ms Baldock it is difficult to see a further delay of two to three weeks will unduly prejudice the respondent when considered against Ms Baldock’s circumstances.

[15]            I also note that, given the direction of Judge Davenport on 12 March 2025, the respondent’s right to issue a notice to enforce the possession and tenancy order has been extended for 90 days from 3 March 2025 so its rights to enforce the possession order are currently preserved.

[16]            I record that Ms Botha did not take any jurisdictional point other than to address the merit of the application for leave. There is of course no general right of appeal to this Court. Any right of appeal on a substantive matter is limited to an appeal on a question of law. I have to observe that given the statutory provisions relied on by the respondent to terminate Ms Baldock’s tenancy in this case it is difficult to contemplate any question of law being formulated as an appeal to this Court from any decision of the District Court.

[17]            Finally, as discussed with Mr Hayes it may well be in his client’s best interests to accept the reality of her situation and make appropriate arrangements.

Venning J