Noble v Simons - [2020] NZCA 259

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA39/2020
[2020] NZCA 259

BETWEEN	ROBERT CHARLES NOBLE Applicant
AND	GRAEME LESLIE SIMONS Respondent

Court:	Miller and Clifford JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person Respondent in person
Judgment: (On the papers)	26 June 2020 at 10 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is declined.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Clifford J)

Introduction

[1] This is an application by Mr Noble, pursuant to s 120 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act), for special leave to bring a second appeal on a question of law against a decision of the High Court upholding determinations of the Tenancy Tribunal and the District Court.[1]
[1]Noble v Simons [2018] NZDC 26672 [District Court appeal]; Noble v Simons [2019] NZHC 2438 [High Court appeal]; and Noble v Simons [2019] NZHC 3242 [High Court leave decision].
[2] Section 120(3) of the Act provides that this Court may grant leave if, in its opinion, the appeal involves a question of law that, because of its general or public importance or for any other reason, ought to be submitted to the Court of Appeal for decision. Upon a second appeal this Court is not engaged in the general correction of error. Its primary function is to clarify the law and to determine whether it has been properly construed and applied by the Court below.[2]

Background

The claims to the Tribunal

[2]Waller v Hider [1998] 1 NZLR 412 (CA) at 413.

[3]       Between November 2016 and May 2017 Mr Simons was a tenant in a property owned by Mr Noble. During the period of that tenancy, Mr Noble was endeavouring to sell the property. Mr Simons knew that was Mr Noble’s intention when he entered into the tenancy agreement. Mr Simons formed the view, however, that Mr Noble’s attendances at the property went beyond what was reasonable or agreed. Having himself found a house to buy, he gave notice terminating his tenancy.
[4]       Subsequently Mr Simons brought a damages claim in the Tenancy Tribunal against Mr Noble, based on Mr Noble’s alleged breach of his right of quiet enjoyment. Mr Noble then claimed unpaid rent from Mr Simons.
[5]       The Tribunal upheld Mr Simons’ claim for damages, but dismissed Mr Noble’s claim for rent arrears.
[6]       In upholding Mr Simons’ claim, and making a global award of exemplary damages totalling $2,250, the adjudicator said:[3]
In the almost seven years I have been a Tenancy Tribunal adjudicator, this is one of the worst, if the not the worst case, of sustained harassment that I have seen. I order the Landlord to pay the Tenant $2,250.00 in this regard. Had the Tenant not limited his claim to $2,250.00 I would have awarded nearly the maximum or the maximum amount of exemplary damages allowed, which here would have been $3,000.00.

Appeal to the District Court[4]

[3]Pursuant to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, ss 38(3), 48(4), 109 and sch…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Noble v Simons and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2020] NZCA 259
Decision Date: 26 June 2020 at 10 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involves a dispute between Robert Charles Noble and Graeme Leslie Simons, which was initially heard by the Tenancy Tribunal, then appealed to the District Court, and further appealed to the High Court. The primary issues in dispute were whether Mr Noble's actions warranted an award of damages to Mr Simons and whether Mr Simons' notice of termination of tenancy was effective. Mr Noble subsequently applied for special leave to bring a second appeal on questions of law to the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. The primary legal issue the Court had to decide was whether the application for special leave should be granted based on the arguments presented by Mr Noble. The Court found that the questions proposed by Mr Noble for a second appeal were essentially challenges to the factual findings of the Tribunal and the District Court, which had already been upheld by the High Court. The Court held that these were not questions of law that required further appeal and that there was no public interest or other reason to grant leave for a second appeal. Consequently, the Court declined the application for leave to appeal.

The Court of Appeal considered the application for leave to appeal on questions of law and found that the proposed questions were not suitable for a second appeal. The Court noted that the questions were essentially challenges to the factual findings of the Tribunal and the District Court, which had already been upheld by the High Court. The Court further found that the proposed questions were not raised by the way the case had been argued and responded to in the previous courts. The Court concluded that there was no legal basis for a question of law based on the arguments presented by Mr Noble and that there was no public interest or other reason to grant leave for a second appeal. As a result, the application for leave to appeal was declined, and there was no order as to costs as both parties represented themselves.

Orders