What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4378040?

The tribunal order states: Gavin Sanson’s application for a rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4378040?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4378040?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9613640-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4378040?

The tribunal order states: Gavin Sanson’s application for a rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4378040?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4378040?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9613640-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

28B Ronald Macken Place, Windsor Park, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4378040 — Leaks

Order

Gavin Sanson’s application for a rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Introduction

Gavin Sanson attended the hearing for the tenants. 1
Sonny Shaw attended by telephone.
The tenants applied for a rehearing of parts of the Tribunal’s decision dated 29 May 2023. Background
The tenancy began on 6 July 2013 and did not end until almost 10 years later, on 7 October 2022. 1 I heard this matter at North Shore District Court on 9 November 2023.
On 16 August 2022, Mr Shaw served Mr Sanson with a 63-day termination of tenancy notice that stated the owner or a member of the owner’s family wanted to use the premises as their principal place of residence.
On 17 August 2022, Mr Sanson filed a claim in the Tribunal alleging the termination notice was bad for being retaliatory.
On 19 August 2022, Mr Sanson sent a text to Mr Shaw’s real estate agent that, “From now on there will be no more viewing...”.
On 26 August 2022, Mr Shaw signed a sale and purchase agreement with a purchaser for the premises. Mr Sanson’s grounds for seeking a rehearing
Mr Sanson submitted that the Tribunal’s findings about the purchase price of the property being reduced by $55,000.00 and that Mr Shaw had investigated his options about how to fix a leak amounted to a miscarriage of justice.
In its decision the Tribunal found at paragraphs 62 and 71: As a result of the refusal, the prospective purchaser could not inspect the premises...Once the purchaser eventually accessed the premises, the sale price was reduced by $55,000.00. ... The effect of the unlawful act was to complicate the landlord’s sale of the premises. The purchaser did buy the property, but later $55,000.00 had to [be] taken off the purchase price due to the unit’s problems, which had apparently not been sufficiently disclosed to the purchaser
At paragraph 24, the Tribunal found: After investigating his options, Mr Sanson decided his son going up to Auckland to carry out the bulk of excavation work was the most practical thing to do. They would live in the water-damaged unit for the several months required to do the work. Legal principles
Section 105(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 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.
The applicant need not establish an actual miscarriage of justice or substantial wrong, only that it may have occurred. However, in Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, Judge Tuohy held that the statutory language set a high standard, and that: [18] ... They most obviously apply ... to cases of procedural error eg a hearing which takes place in the absence of a party who has not been given notice of it; the improper admission or rejection of evidence; misconduct by the adjudicator or by one of the parties or a witness. The words may also encompass the discovery of new and important evidence not previously available. [19] In my view, however, the words do not cover a complaint that the Tribunal was merely mistaken or wrong in its findings of fact or in its application of the law. There are two reasons for this. First the strength of the language in s 105 is such that something more than a mere wrong decision must be shown. The section does not speak of a decision being wrong, but of a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurring. This implies obvious injustice, not merely an erroneous decision.
As noted by Judge Christiansen in the District Court appeal of Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC 1993: Rehearings are about challenges to processes and procedures and are not about what the adjudicator found or the decisions the adjudicator made.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

The evidence was that the property’s originally agreed purchase price was reduced after the purchasers claimed they had not had adequate disclosure of the premises leaking problems.
Mr Sanson’s refusal to allow the purchasers access to the premises complicated that situation by making the purchaser’s claim of lack of adequate disclosure more tenable. If Mr Sanson had let the purchasers and the real estate agent through the premises, it would have been harder for the purchasers to say they did not know the full extent of the problem.
I cannot see that there is anything occasioning a miscarriage in the Tribunal’s findings about the purchase price being reduced.
Nor can I find anything challengeable on rehearing grounds in respect to the Tribunal’s comment that Mr Shaw had investigated his options in respect to the leak. Mr Shaw’s emails confirmed that he had spoken to his son about him digging out the back of premises to stop the leak, attempted to get a builder’s contact details, had spoken to his real estate agent about how best to address the issue, and contacted the neighbouring school’s principal about disposing of dirt from the intended works on the school’s grounds
The evidence supports the Tribunal’s findings. There is no good reason to resile from them. Even if the findings were wrong, it has not been shown that any substantial wrong or miscarriage has arisen or might arise from them. Conclusion
I am not satisfied that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur from the decision.
It follows that the application for a rehearing must be dismissed.

Order

Gavin Sanson’s application for a rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Introduction

Gavin Sanson attended the hearing for the tenants. 1
Sonny Shaw attended by telephone.
The tenants applied for a rehearing of parts of the Tribunal’s decision dated 29 May 2023. Background
The tenancy began on 6 July 2013 and did not end until almost 10 years later, on 7 October 2022. 1 I heard this matter at North Shore District Court on 9 November 2023.
On 16 August 2022, Mr Shaw served Mr Sanson with a 63-day termination of tenancy notice that stated the owner or a member of the owner’s family wanted to use the premises as their principal place of residence.
On 17 August 2022, Mr Sanson filed a claim in the Tribunal alleging the termination notice was bad for being retaliatory.
On 19 August 2022, Mr Sanson sent a text to Mr Shaw’s real estate agent that, “From now on there will be no more viewing...”.
On 26 August 2022, Mr Shaw signed a sale and purchase agreement with a purchaser for the premises. Mr Sanson’s grounds for seeking a rehearing
Mr Sanson submitted that the Tribunal’s findings about the purchase price of the property being reduced by $55,000.00 and that Mr Shaw had investigated his options about how to fix a leak amounted to a miscarriage of justice.
In its decision the Tribunal found at paragraphs 62 and 71: As a result of the refusal, the prospective purchaser could not inspect the premises...Once the purchaser eventually accessed the premises, the sale price was reduced by $55,000.00. ... The effect of the unlawful act was to complicate the landlord’s sale of the premises. The purchaser did buy the property, but later $55,000.00 had to [be] taken off the purchase price due to the unit’s problems, which had apparently not been sufficiently disclosed to the purchaser
At paragraph 24, the Tribunal found: After investigating his options, Mr Sanson decided his son going up to Auckland to carry out the bulk of excavation work was the most practical thing to do. They would live in the water-damaged unit for the several months required to do the work. Legal principles
Section 105(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 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.
The applicant need not establish an actual miscarriage of justice or substantial wrong, only that it may have occurred. However, in Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, Judge Tuohy held that the statutory language set a high standard, and that: [18] ... They most obviously apply ... to cases of procedural error eg a hearing which takes place in the absence of a party who has not been given notice of it; the improper admission or rejection of evidence; misconduct by the adjudicator or by one of the parties or a witness. The words may also encompass the discovery of new and important evidence not previously available. [19] In my view, however, the words do not cover a complaint that the Tribunal was merely mistaken or wrong in its findings of fact or in its application of the law. There are two reasons for this. First the strength of the language in s 105 is such that something more than a mere wrong decision must be shown. The section does not speak of a decision being wrong, but of a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurring. This implies obvious injustice, not merely an erroneous decision.
As noted by Judge Christiansen in the District Court appeal of Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC 1993: Rehearings are about challenges to processes and procedures and are not about what the adjudicator found or the decisions the adjudicator made.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

The evidence was that the property’s originally agreed purchase price was reduced after the purchasers claimed they had not had adequate disclosure of the premises leaking problems.
Mr Sanson’s refusal to allow the purchasers access to the premises complicated that situation by making the purchaser’s claim of lack of adequate disclosure more tenable. If Mr Sanson had let the purchasers and the real estate agent through the premises, it would have been harder for the purchasers to say they did not know the full extent of the problem.
I cannot see that there is anything occasioning a miscarriage in the Tribunal’s findings about the purchase price being reduced.
Nor can I find anything challengeable on rehearing grounds in respect to the Tribunal’s comment that Mr Shaw had investigated his options in respect to the leak. Mr Shaw’s emails confirmed that he had spoken to his son about him digging out the back of premises to stop the leak, attempted to get a builder’s contact details, had spoken to his real estate agent about how best to address the issue, and contacted the neighbouring school’s principal about disposing of dirt from the intended works on the school’s grounds
The evidence supports the Tribunal’s findings. There is no good reason to resile from them. Even if the findings were wrong, it has not been shown that any substantial wrong or miscarriage has arisen or might arise from them. Conclusion
I am not satisfied that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur from the decision.
It follows that the application for a rehearing must be dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4378040 — Leaks at 28B Ronald Macken Place, Windsor Park,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4378040 — Leaks at 28B Ronald Macken Place, Windsor Park,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions