Grey v Housing New Zealand Corporation HC Auckland CIV 2010-404-2242

[2010] NZHC 1242

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2010-404-2242

UNDER  Judicature Act 1908 and

AND UNDER                 the Residential Tenancies Act 1986

IN THE MATTER OF     an appeal from a judgment of the District

Court

BETWEEN  RICHARD GREY Appellant

ANDHOUSING NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION

Respondent

Hearing:         19 May 2010

Appearances: Appellant in person (with Mr Areta Ransfield as McKenzie Friend) Steve Haszard and Claire Paterson for Respondent

Judgment:      25 May 2010 at 4:00pm

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF HUGH WILLIAMS J

These Reasons for Judgment were delivered by

The Hon. Justice Hugh Williams on

25 May 2010 at 4:00pm

pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

GREY V HOUSING NZ CORP  HC AK CIV-2010-404-2242  25 May 2010

……………………………………………..

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

The application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against this Court’s dismissal of his appeal on 5 May 2010 is also dismissed.

Introduction

[1]      In  an  oral  judgment  delivered  on  19  May  2010,  the  application  by  the appellant, Mr Grey, for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against this Court’s dismissal on 5 May 2010 of his appeal was itself dismissed.

[2]      The Court said that reasons for that judgment would follow in due course. These are those reasons.

[3]      Mr Grey said he cannot read or write but is “very confused” with what has occurred since delivery of the judgment on 5 May 2010.  To help Mr Grey, the Court will use plain English words in giving these reasons, even though the words used may not be the normal legal words.

[4]      The Court also notes that it was told during the hearing on 19 May 2010, first that Mr Grey was no longer living full-time in the property at 46 Paddington Street, Glen Innes, Auckland and, secondly, that his partner, Ms Reilly, had agreed with Housing New Zealand Corporation, the respondent, to shift out of the property that day.  So it may be the case that the tenancy held by Mr Grey and Ms Reilly has come to an end, that they are no longer in the property and thus there is nothing left to talk about.

Co-ownership?

[5]      As was said in Court on 19 May, any money paid by ACC would have been paid to Mr Grey and Ms Reilly’s son for his medical misadventure – Mr Grey used that phrase – to be used to alter the house so that the son could live in it rather than going into care.  The fact that his carers in the house were Mr Grey and Ms Reilly does not change the fact that the money that had been paid to the son to make the changes to the house.

[6]      On that basis there is no way that Mr Grey or Ms Reilly could claim to own any part of the house which had been altered using the son’s ACC money.

[7]      A second reason for taking that view is that whatever reason ACC might have had for paying the money, it certainly could not have been on the basis that the house which was owned by Housing New Zealand would become partly owned by its tenants.

[8]      A third reason for taking that view is that there were no papers before the District Court or this Court showing why the money was paid or to whom or on what basis.   This whole matter only came to be talked about in Court because of what Mr Grey said in answer to the Court’s questions.

[9]      There was, therefore, no basis whatever to think the altered tenanted house could in any way be partly owned by Mr Grey or Ms Reilly.

Non-payment of rent

[10]     As the 5 May judgment said, there are quite a lot of ways in which a landlord can end a tenancy and put its tenants out of the house.

[11]     One of those ways is when the tenant does not pay the rent.

[12]     As  was  said  on  5  May,  Housing  New  Zealand  applied  to  the  Tenancy Tribunal under s 55(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act on 28 May 2010 to bring Mr Grey’s tenancy to an end on the basis that he had not kept the rent up-to-date. On 5 May, that matter was still before the Tenancy Tribunal but had been adjourned. If the tenancy has not already been ended, it may still be ended by Mr Grey and Ms Reilly not paying all the rent.

90 day notice

[13]     Another  way  in  which  landlords  can  end  tenancies  is  by  giving  tenants

90 days notice under s 51.  Landlords do not have to give any reason for issuing a

90 day notice.

[14]     Housing New Zealand gave Mr Grey and Ms Reilly 90 days notice under s 51 on 3 December 2009.  The 90 days expired on 3 March 2010.  Ms Reilly or Mr Grey applied to strike out that notice but Judge Sinclair held the District Court could not do that and they had to apply to the Tenancy Tribunal under s 82.

[15]     Judge Sinclair was right when she said that.

[16]     The 90 days is long since over.  Expiry of a 90 day notice ends the tenancy and it is up to the Tenancy Tribunal – if the tenancy is not ended by other means – for it now to order Ms Reilly and Mr Grey to leave the property because their tenancy has been ended.

Damage to property

[17]     Another way landlords can end tenancies is if tenants damage the property. In Mr Grey’s case he damaged the property and threatened Housing New Zealand officers.  Housing New Zealand applied on 16 December 2009 to end the tenancy under s 55 because of Mr Grey’s damage.

[18]     The Tenancy Tribunal agreed on 8 January 2010 and set out its reasons for ending the tenancy that day and on that date and ordering that Housing New Zealand could take possession of the property.

[19]     Housing New Zealand could not, however, take possession of the property on that date because there were various Court orders which prevented their doing so.

[20]     There is no need to list those orders because in a judgment delivered by Judge Hubble on 5 May 2010 in the District Court, he held the Tenancy Tribunal was right when it ended the tenancy under s 55 because Mr Grey damaged the house. He dismissed the appeal because of that.

Leave to appeal

[21]     Under s 67 of the Judicature Act 1908 Mr Grey had to get the permission of this Court to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the result of the 5 May 2010 judgment.  He could only get that appeal if he could show there was a point of law in the appeal which had enough general public importance for permission for a second appeal to be allowed.

[22]     As was said on 19 May – and as appears from what has already been said in these reasons – there was no point of law in the 5 May judgment.  The whole of the judgment was about matters of fact.  So Mr Grey could not get permission on that basis.

[23]     Even if there had been a point of law involved in the 5 May judgment, all the matters before the Court were only matters which affected Mr Grey and Ms Reilly on the one hand and Housing New Zealand on the other.  They were not matters of public or general importance.  The issues were only of importance to the parties.  So Mr Grey could not be given permission for that reason as well.

Other matters and result

[24]     In his papers asking for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal, Mr Grey also raised the Court striking out the names of Her Majesty the Queen and a former Governor-General from the heading to this proceeding.

[25]     Those  persons  should  never  have  been  named.    So  there  was  no  basis whatever to give Mr Grey permission to appeal because their names had been struck out.

[26]     The  overall  result  was  that  on  19  May  2010,  Mr  Grey  was  not  given permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the judgment of 5 May 2010.

[27]     Mr Grey may perhaps think himself lucky that Housing New Zealand has not asked the Court to order him to pay costs.

.................................................................

HUGH WILLIAMS J.

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, PO Box 2213, Auckland

Copy to:
Mr Richard Grey, 46 Paddington Street, Glen Innes, Auckland 1072

Mr Areta Ransfield (Fax no. 09 570 4857) District Court Judge Hubble

District Court Judge Sinclair

Case Officer:                   SusanJan[email protected]