What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4382684?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4382684?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4382684?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4382684?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9291939-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4382684?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4382684?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4382684?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4382684?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9291939-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 43 Walters Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4382684 — Tenancy dispute

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 3 August 2023.
On 18 April 2023 the Tribunal made an order awarding the amount of $1,450.00 to Mr Edmonds and dismissed other claims made.
On 19 April 2023, Mr Edmonds applied for a rehearing on the grounds that:
The respondent opposes the application for rehearing.
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.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons Mr Edmonds has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing. • The reasons for requesting a rehearing essentially amount to a disagreement with the Tribunal's findings on the facts and application of the law. As noted above, this is not sufficient to establish a miscarriage of justice. • Mr Edmonds was critical of the landlord’s conduct (at the hearing in October 2022) claiming it had not received proper notice, including a copy of the application. I granted an adjournment in the interests of natural justice and procedural fairness. Whilst this adjournment delayed the hearing of the evidence, I am not satisfied that it unnecessarily disadvantaged Mr Edmonds. This is not a ground for a rehearing. • Mr Edmonds indicates he was not given an opportunity to fully review late submissions/evidence presented by the landlord at the hearing in January 2023. However, the Tribunal gave Mr Edmonds an opportunity for the matter to be adjourned so he could consider the landlord’s submissions/evidence in detail, but he declined and instead insisted that the hearing proceed. This is not a ground for a rehearing. • I approached the hearing with an open mind. The parties were given an opportunity to present their respective positions at the original hearing. All relevant evidence presented was considered by the Tribunal. • The Tribunal has the discretion to decide the format of the proceedings as to how the proceedings are conducted. On occasion, a party to a hearing may disagree with how they would have liked things to have been run. It is the Adjudicator, not the parties, who has that duty and power. The mere fact that a party has not been permitted to say everything that they want to say about a case or where a hearing has not been conducted the way a party would have liked is not a ground for saying that the party had their rights to be heard breached. I consider I had completed my duty in this matter in accordance with the principles of natural justice and my responsibilities under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. • Mr Edmonds criticises the manner in which the Tribunal dealt with evidence. It is the fundamental role of the Adjudicator to hear evidence from the parties, to consider that evidence, and to make a decision on the evidence presented. It should also be noted that an Adjudicator has no obligation to refer to each and every aspect of the evidence presented (Repia v Walsh Trust DC Waitakere CIV2011-090-56, 27 April 2011). Inevitably on occasion, one of the parties will disagree with the weight that the Adjudicator has given to a particular piece of the evidence. But that is the nature of the Tribunal process. It is not a ground for a rehearing. If a party considers the Adjudicator has made incorrect findings on the evidence, that party may appeal the decision. • The Tribunal endeavours to keep its procedures relatively informal, in keeping with the purpose and intent of the philosophy which underpins the Tribunal. Mr Edmonds has not raised any significant issue in relation to the Tribunal's procedure that can amount to a ground for a rehearing. • Ultimately, there is nothing in the rehearing application that would lead me to making a different decision nor an indication of any new evidence that was not reasonably available at the time of the hearings which would have changed the outcome.
The application for a rehearing fails to establish grounds for a rehearing and therefore it must be dismissed.

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 3 August 2023.
On 18 April 2023 the Tribunal made an order awarding the amount of $1,450.00 to Mr Edmonds and dismissed other claims made.
On 19 April 2023, Mr Edmonds applied for a rehearing on the grounds that:
The respondent opposes the application for rehearing.
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.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons Mr Edmonds has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing. • The reasons for requesting a rehearing essentially amount to a disagreement with the Tribunal's findings on the facts and application of the law. As noted above, this is not sufficient to establish a miscarriage of justice. • Mr Edmonds was critical of the landlord’s conduct (at the hearing in October 2022) claiming it had not received proper notice, including a copy of the application. I granted an adjournment in the interests of natural justice and procedural fairness. Whilst this adjournment delayed the hearing of the evidence, I am not satisfied that it unnecessarily disadvantaged Mr Edmonds. This is not a ground for a rehearing. • Mr Edmonds indicates he was not given an opportunity to fully review late submissions/evidence presented by the landlord at the hearing in January 2023. However, the Tribunal gave Mr Edmonds an opportunity for the matter to be adjourned so he could consider the landlord’s submissions/evidence in detail, but he declined and instead insisted that the hearing proceed. This is not a ground for a rehearing. • I approached the hearing with an open mind. The parties were given an opportunity to present their respective positions at the original hearing. All relevant evidence presented was considered by the Tribunal. • The Tribunal has the discretion to decide the format of the proceedings as to how the proceedings are conducted. On occasion, a party to a hearing may disagree with how they would have liked things to have been run. It is the Adjudicator, not the parties, who has that duty and power. The mere fact that a party has not been permitted to say everything that they want to say about a case or where a hearing has not been conducted the way a party would have liked is not a ground for saying that the party had their rights to be heard breached. I consider I had completed my duty in this matter in accordance with the principles of natural justice and my responsibilities under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. • Mr Edmonds criticises the manner in which the Tribunal dealt with evidence. It is the fundamental role of the Adjudicator to hear evidence from the parties, to consider that evidence, and to make a decision on the evidence presented. It should also be noted that an Adjudicator has no obligation to refer to each and every aspect of the evidence presented (Repia v Walsh Trust DC Waitakere CIV2011-090-56, 27 April 2011). Inevitably on occasion, one of the parties will disagree with the weight that the Adjudicator has given to a particular piece of the evidence. But that is the nature of the Tribunal process. It is not a ground for a rehearing. If a party considers the Adjudicator has made incorrect findings on the evidence, that party may appeal the decision. • The Tribunal endeavours to keep its procedures relatively informal, in keeping with the purpose and intent of the philosophy which underpins the Tribunal. Mr Edmonds has not raised any significant issue in relation to the Tribunal's procedure that can amount to a ground for a rehearing. • Ultimately, there is nothing in the rehearing application that would lead me to making a different decision nor an indication of any new evidence that was not reasonably available at the time of the hearings which would have changed the outcome.
The application for a rehearing fails to establish grounds for a rehearing and therefore it must be dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4382684 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 2, 43 Walters Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4382684 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 2, 43 Walters Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions