In 2009, Mrs. Osaki left the pot of boiling oil on the stove, left the kitchen, and soon forgot about it. Her absent-mindedness not only led to significant
fire destruction of the (rented) property but also set off a chain of judicial events that culminated in the controversial Court of Appeal judgment Holler & Rouse v Osaki & Anor [2016] NZCA 130 [15 April 2016] – a decision which has since rocked the landlord community to its core.
Related article: Holler v Osaki and how it affects landlords
We have been very vocal about the injustice that is intrinsic in Holler and at one point analogised the decision as arming a child with a
livewire and shrugging your shoulder when the bomb goes off. If a tenant is deemed competent enough to enjoy exclusive possession of the rental
property, then it makes no sense to immunise her from any form of accountability when she damages said property.
We accept that the Osakis are a special case insofar as the quantum of claim against them would naturally shift the balance of sympathy in their favour.
We also acknowledge that it would be unfair to allow landlords to double-dip on damage remedies when there is an appropriate insurance policy
to fall back on. We do feel, however, that the COA could have given due consideration to the nature of the vast majority of rental property damages.
If it had, then we believe that it would have foreseen the upheaval that Holler is causing in the rental market. Damages
caused by Mrs. Osaki to Mr. Holler’s house, though significant, were not at all representative of most cases of damage to rental properties. Most
damages cost much...
