Huffman v G - [2025] NZHC 232

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE NAME AND PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENT PURSUANT TO S 95A OF THE

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT 1986

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2024-409-108

[2025] NZHC 232

BETWEEN
ROBERT CAMPBELL HUFFMAN

Appellant

AND

G

Respondent

CIV-2024-409-192

BETWEEN

ROBERT CAMPBELL HUFFMAN
Applicant

AND

CHRISTCHURCH DISTRICT COURT

First Respondent

AND

G

Second Respondent

Hearing: 13 February 2024

Appearances:

Appellant in person

First Respondent – appearance excused Respondent/Second Respondent in person

Judgment:

20 February 2025

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

This judgment was delivered by me on 20 February 2025 at 3.30 pm, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

HUFFMAN v G [2025] NZHC 232 [20 February 2025]

[1] Mr Huffman brings two proceedings, both challenging the decision of the District Court declining his appeal of a Tenancy Tribunal decision.1

[2] The first proceeding is an appeal of the District Court decision brought under s 119 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) (the appeal proceedings). The second is an application for judicial review of the District Court’s decision (the judicial review proceedings).

[3] Because the proceedings relate to the same decision, raise similar issues, and rely on the same evidence, it was directed by Associate Judge Lester that they should be heard together.

[4] As is usual, the first named respondent in the judicial proceedings, the Christchurch District Court, abides the decision of the Court, and counsel were excused from appearing. However, at the Court’s request, counsel for the first respondent has provided legal submissions on the jurisdictional issues that may arise for the Court’s consideration.

[5] At the substantive appeal hearing, both Mr Huffman and the respondent appeared in person, and presented submissions.

Background

[6] Before turning to the pleadings, and exactly what is alleged by Mr Huffman, it is necessary to set out some brief background to explain why the parties are before the Court.

[7] Mr Huffman lived in hostel-style accommodation in central Christchurch, which will be referred to as “the backpackers”, from 2 August 2020 until he was made to leave on 29 November 2021.

[8] The respondent is a director of [the company] which bought the backpackers in September 2021. The proceedings in the Tenancy Tribunal were brought against

1 Huffman v [Respondent] [2024] NZDC 2082.

the company as the alleged landlord. I have no explanation as to why the respondent is now named in his personal capacity but, as no objection is taken to that, either in the subsequent District Court decision or here, I take that no further.

The Tenancy Tribunal proceedings

[9] Mr Huffman took exception to being asked to leave the backpackers hostel. He filed proceedings in the Tenancy Tribunal wanting the Tribunal to find that he had a boarding house tenancy, as defined in the Act. Mr Huffman sought compensation and exemplary damages because the alleged landlord, the company, acted in breach of the Act when it terminated the stay and…

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 Huffman v G

Details

AGLC: Huffman v G [2025] NZHC 232
Case: [2025] NZHC 232
Decision Date: 20 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Huffman v G, the High Court dismissed Mr Huffman's appeal against the District Court's decision to dismiss his appeal of a Tenancy Tribunal decision and also dismissed his application for judicial review of that decision. The appeal and judicial review proceedings concerned the District Court's decision to dismiss Mr Huffman's appeal of the Tenancy Tribunal's decision that he did not have a boarding house tenancy under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act). The High Court found that the District Court did not err in law in dismissing Mr Huffman's appeal. The Court found that the District Court was entitled to decline to admit further evidence which was reasonably available at the time of the Tenancy Tribunal hearing and that the District Court did not err in not enquiring into whether the check-in record provided by the respondent was false. The Court found that the District Court had acted judicially by examining the issues in dispute in relation to the facts and making findings of fact on the evidence which was properly admitted. The Court dismissed the appeal and the application for judicial review, with costs reserved but not encouraged.

Orders