Parbhu v Want

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2018-485-184

[2018] NZHC 2411

UNDER THE Residential Tenancies Act 1986

IN THE MATTER OF

an appeal from the decision of the District Court dated 4 February 2018

BETWEEN

SUNIL DENNIS PARBHU AND KUMUD PATEL

Appellants

AND

NICOLE WANT

Respondent

Teleconference: 12 September 2018

Counsel:

R J Thompson for the Appellant C J Nicholls for the Respondent

Judgment:

13 September 2018

JUDGMENT OF COOKE J

(Leave to appeal to Court of Appeal)

[1] The respondent, Ms Want applies for special leave to appeal my decision in this proceeding to the Court of Appeal. 1 Under s 120 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 such leave can be granted if the appeal involves questions of law that because of their general or public importance ought to be submitted to the Court of Appeal for decision.

[2] I accept the two questions of law formulated in Ms Want’s application dated 3 September 2018 duly meet the requirements for leave, as the appellants accept. There are now two inconsistent High Court decisions on the correct interpretation of the

1 Parbu v Want [2018] NZHC 2079.

PARBHU v WANT [2018] NZHC 2411 [13 September 2018]

provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act. There have been several decisions of the Tenancy Tribunal concerning the matters to which the interpretation issues relate, so the correct interpretation of the provisions is a matter of wider interest.2 The issues are properly addressed by the Court of Appeal. I accordingly grant leave to appeal.

[3] The appellants have also sought that I make an order as contemplated by s 45(5) of the Legal Services Act 2011. Under s 45 costs can only be awarded against a legal aided person if there are exceptional circumstances, and there are no such circumstances in the present case. An order can then be made by the Court specifying what order of costs would have been made against the legally aided person if s 45 had not affected that person’s liability.

[4] I accept that such an order should be made, and agree with counsel for the appellants that but for s 45 costs would have been awarded against the respondent on a 2B basis in the amount set out in the schedule to his memorandum of 12 September 2018, totalling $14,495. I order accordingly.

Cooke J

Solicitors:
Loughlin McGuire & Roud Lawyers, Auckland for the Appellants

2 See Parbhu v Want, at [11], footnotes 9 and 10.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sunil Dennis Parbhu and Kumund Patel appeal against a decision of the District Court which found they breached their tenancy agreement by failing to provide their landlord, Nicole Want, with their contact details. Ms Want applied to the High Court for leave to appeal the decision of Justice Cooke to the Court of Appeal. The appeal seeks to determine two questions of law concerning the interpretation of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Justice Cooke accepted that the appeal involved questions of law of general or public importance and therefore granted leave for the appeal to proceed.

The appeal concerns the interpretation of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and the Tenancy Agreement between the appellants and Ms Want. The appellants argued that the District Court misinterpreted the Act and the Tenancy Agreement by finding they were in breach of their obligations. The appellants submit that there was no requirement under the Tenancy Agreement for them to provide their contact details to Ms Want. The appellants further submit that they were not in breach of the Act as they were not required to provide their contact details to Ms Want.

Justice Cooke considered the submissions of both parties and held that the two questions of law identified by Ms Want were properly before the Court of Appeal. Justice Cooke found that the appeal involved questions of law of general or public importance, given the number of Tenancy Tribunal decisions concerning the interpretation of the Act. Justice Cooke granted leave for the appeal to proceed to the Court of Appeal. Justice Cooke also made an order that if section 45 of the Legal Services Act 2011 had not affected the respondent’s liability, costs would have been awarded against Ms Want on a 2B basis in the amount of $14,495. Justice Cooke ordered that the costs be specified in the order.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

UNDER THE	Residential Tenancies Act 1986
IN THE MATTER OF	an appeal from the decision of the District Court dated 4 February 2018
BETWEEN	SUNIL DENNIS PARBHU AND KUMUD PATEL Appellants
AND	NICOLE WANT Respondent

Teleconference:	12 September 2018
Counsel:	R J Thompson for the Appellant C J Nicholls for the Respondent
Judgment:	13 September 2018