What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4323246 about?

The tribunal order states: The application for rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4323246?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4323246?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4323246?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9869820-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4323246 about?

The tribunal order states: The application for rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4323246?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4323246?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4323246?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9869820-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

519B Cashel Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4323246 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the rehearing hearing.
On 2 February 2022 the Tribunal made orders in relation to this tenancy, following a hearing. The tenants did not attend the hearing in 2022.
On 7 December 2023, the tenants applied for a rehearing of the Tribunal’s failure to grant suppression of their details in the February 2022 order. The tenants said that they have paid their debt in full and the published order is making it difficult for them to secure a rental property.
Section 105(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal has the power to order a rehearing where “a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur”.
Usually, the party applying for the rehearing must show that something went wrong with the Tribunal’s procedure, for example, that they did not receive notice of the hearing or they were not able to properly present their case.
A rehearing may also be granted where there is new evidence that was not reasonably available at the first hearing, if it could have affected the outcome.
The District Court has held that if the Tribunal was simply wrong in its findings of fact, or its application of the law, this is not sufficient to establish a miscarriage of justice: a rehearing is not an alternative to an appeal. Furthermore, a rehearing will not be granted just because a party is unhappy with the decision, or to give them a second opportunity to present their case.
A rehearing application must be made within 5 working days of the order, or such further time as the Tribunal may allow. See s105(2) RTA.
This application was well out of time. The tenants did not provide a compelling explanation for the delay. Nor did they establish any error or issue with the Tribunal’s process at the first hearing.
The landlord confirmed that the debt has been paid in full but opposed the rehearing application on the basis that there was no procedural irregularity at the first hearing. Suppression
I also heard from the parties in relation to suppression in case I decided that a rehearing should be granted.
The tenants did not apply for suppression at the original hearing in 2022. They were not the successful party, so suppression is not available as of right - see s95A Residential Tenancies Act. In order to grant name suppression, under s95(4) RTA, the Tribunal must “have regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest”.
There must be a balancing of two potentially competing considerations, because the interest of the parties (or party) may not be consistent with the interests of the public.
Difficulty in finding alternative accommodation is not an appropriate reason for granting suppression.
The tenants gave evidence of issues in their personal lives at the time of the first hearing which may have supported an application for suppression. However, they did not provide any corroborative evidence. I could not be satisfied, on the evidence before me, that an application for suppression would have been successful, if it had bee made at the first hearing.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the rehearing hearing.

On 2 February 2022 the Tribunal made orders in relation to this tenancy, following a hearing. The tenants did not attend the hearing in 2022.

On 7 December 2023, the tenants applied for a rehearing of the Tribunal’s failure to grant suppression of their details in the February 2022 order. The tenants said that they have paid their debt in full and the published order is making it difficult for them to secure a rental property.

Section 105(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal has the power to order a rehearing where “a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur”.

Usually, the party applying for the rehearing must show that something went wrong with the Tribunal’s procedure, for example, that they did not receive notice of the hearing or they were not able to properly present their case.

A rehearing may also be granted where there is new evidence that was not reasonably available at the first hearing, if it could have affected the outcome.

The District Court has held that if the Tribunal was simply wrong in its findings of fact, or its application of the law, this is not sufficient to establish a miscarriage of justice: a rehearing is not an alternative to an appeal. Furthermore, a rehearing will not be granted just because a party is unhappy with the decision, or to give them a second opportunity to present their case.

A rehearing application must be made within 5 working days of the order, or such further time as the Tribunal may allow. See s105(2) RTA.

This application was well out of time. The tenants did not provide a compelling explanation for the delay. Nor did they establish any error or issue with the Tribunal’s process at the first hearing.

The landlord confirmed that the debt has been paid in full but opposed the rehearing application on the basis that there was no procedural irregularity at the first hearing. Suppression

I also heard from the parties in relation to suppression in case I decided that a rehearing should be granted.

The tenants did not apply for suppression at the original hearing in 2022. They were not the successful party, so suppression is not available as of right - see s95A Residential Tenancies Act. In order to grant name suppression, under s95(4) RTA, the Tribunal must “have regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest”.

There must be a balancing of two potentially competing considerations, because the interest of the parties (or party) may not be consistent with the interests of the public.

Difficulty in finding alternative accommodation is not an appropriate reason for granting suppression.

The tenants gave evidence of issues in their personal lives at the time of the first hearing which may have supported an application for suppression. However, they did not provide any corroborative evidence. I could not be satisfied, on the evidence before me, that an application for suppression would have been successful, if it had bee made at the first hearing.

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4323246 — Tenancy dispute at 519B Cashel Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8011

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4323246 — Tenancy dispute at 519B Cashel Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8011

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions