Reserved judgment — appeal of Tenancy Tribunal — Residential Tenancies Act 1986, ss 4, 22B(2), 39, 85, 96(2), — Woollams v Simpson Auckland DC CIV-2005-004-1583 16 March 2006. The appellant appeared in Court to appeal a Tenancy Tribunal decision on the basis it was wrong in fact and law, and applied to introduce new evidence and raise new grounds of defence. The Tribunal had previously determined that the respondent was not liable for the water rates, except for the final two bills, and further, that her bond of $1950.00 should be refunded to her. The first ground raised in appeal was failure to adjourn proceedings, as the respondent was represented by another person as she was overseas and did not intend to return to New Zealand. The appellant submitted that the respondent was a key witness and wished to cross-examine her. However, the Judge did not accept that there was merit in the appellant's assertion of prejudice, as if issues were raised, the stand-in representative could have adjourned the proceedings at any time. The second issue was failure to adjourn or consider a counterclaim in relation to the bond refund. This also failed as the landlord failed to file a counterclaim and had ample time to do so. The third ground was admissibility of new evidence, however, this also failed as the evidence was available at the time of the hearing and was not particular relevant to determining the water rates claim. The fourth ground was to the liability for the water rates. The tenancy agreement provided that “tenants are responsible for water, garden, power, and all other costs”. The respondent did not receive any accounts for water rates during her three and a half year tenancy, until the final day of her tenancy when the landlord presented her with a breakdown of water charges totalling $4,303.59. The adjudicator, following "Woollams" held that the tenant was liable for just the final two bills presented at the end of her tenancy. The appellant submitted that the Tribunal misapplied "Woollams", however, the Judge disagreed and further clarified that she believed the "Woollams" decision was also correctly decided. For those reasons, the Judge dismissed the appeal and awarded costs to the respondent. Judgment Date: 3 September 2018.