Holler v Osaki - [2016] NZCA 130

For a Court ready (fee required) version please follow this link

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA654/2014
[2016] NZCA 130

BETWEEN

ANDREAS LUIGI HOLLER AND KATHARINE MARY ROUSE
Appellants

AND

KENJI OSAKI
First Respondent

TIEKO OSAKI
Second Respondent

Hearing:	5 November 2015
Court:	Cooper, Winkelmann and Kós JJ
Counsel:	B D Gray QC and E J Walton for Appellants D G Collecutt for Respondents
Judgment:	15 April 2016 at 12.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe questions are answered as follows:
Question 1
Whether residential tenants are immune from a claim by the landlord where the rental property suffers loss or damage caused intentionally or carelessly by the tenant or the tenant’s guests?
Answer: Yes, to the extent provided in ss 268 and 269 of the Property Law Act 2007.
Question 2
Whether, by enacting the Property Law Act 2007 Parliament has intentionally adopted different positions for commercial and residential tenancies and has expressed this clearly so that it is inappropriate for the Court to construe the Property Law Act 2007 and the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 in a manner which achieves a different effect?
Answer:No.
BThe appeal is dismissed.
CThe appellants must pay the respondents costs for a standard appeal on a band A basis, together with usual disbursements.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Winkelmann J)

Table of Contents

Para No
Background
Damage to the residential premises[2]
     The lengthy background to this appeal[3]
Appeal  [11]
Analysis
The text  [18]
     Legislative history  [34]

(i)    Law Commission reports  [35]
(ii)   The enactment of the Property Law Act 2007  [49]
         (iii) Subsequent amendments  [55]
Conclusion  [57]
Result  [58]

Sections 268 and 269 of the Property Law Act 2007 (the PLA) provide as a general rule that a lessor of leased premises may not require the lessee to meet the cost of destruction or damage to the premises caused during their tenancy by fire, flood and other perils which can be insured against, other than in very limited circumstances. The issue that arises on this appeal is whether those statutory provisions apply to residential tenancies under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA).

Background

Damage to the residential premises

Mr Holler and Ms Rouse owned a house insured by AMI Insurance Ltd. They entered into a residential tenancy agreement with Mr Osaki pursuant to which Mr Osaki, his wife and children occupied the house. In March of 2009, Mrs Osaki left a pot of oil on high heat and unattended for five minutes. Fire broke out causing substantial damage to the house.

The lengthy background to this appeal

AMI indemnified the appellants for the costs of repairs, $216,413.28, but then exercising rights of subrogation, issued summary judgment proceedings in the name of Mr Holler and Ms Rouse in the High Court, claiming the fire repair costs from Mr and Mrs Osaki. The Osakis protested that Court’s jurisdiction, claiming, inter alia, that the Tenancy Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction and that the claim made was barred by ss…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Holler v Osaki

Details

AGLC: Holler v Osaki [2016] NZCA 130
Case: [2016] NZCA 130
Decision Date: 15 April 2016 at 12.30 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Holler v Osaki was heard by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. The appellants, Andreas Luigi Holler and Katharine Mary Rouse, sought to recover damages for fire damage caused to their residential property by the respondents, Mr and Mrs Kenji Osaki, during their tenancy. The respondents argued that they were immune from liability under sections 268 and 269 of the Property Law Act 2007 (PLA). The primary issue was whether these sections apply to residential tenancies under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

The court's analysis began with a textual interpretation of section 142 of the RTA, which initially excludes the application of the PLA to residential tenancies but allows the Tribunal to consider the PLA as a source of general principles. The court found that the exoneration provisions in the PLA could be considered as general principles relevant to the Tribunal's jurisdiction, provided they do not conflict with the RTA. The court determined that the exoneration provisions do not conflict with the RTA and can therefore be applied to residential tenancies.

The legislative history further supported this interpretation. The Law Commission's reports and the parliamentary debates indicated that the intention was to extend the reforms to residential tenancies, although this was not expressly stated. The court concluded that the Tribunal is entitled to refer to the exoneration provisions in the PLA when they constitute general principles relevant to a matter before the Tribunal and are not in conflict with the RTA.

Based on this reasoning, the court answered the questions posed: residential tenants are immune from landlord claims for damage caused by tenant negligence or guests, to the extent provided by sections 268 and 269 of the PLA. The court also found that Parliament did not intend to adopt different positions for commercial and residential tenancies and that it was not inappropriate for the court to construe the PLA and RTA in this manner.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were ordered to pay the respondents' costs for the appeal.

Orders