What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4394060 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders continued tenant name suppression.

How much money was awarded in case 4394060?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4394060?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4394060?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11439211-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4394060 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders continued tenant name suppression.

How much money was awarded in case 4394060?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4394060?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4394060?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11439211-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

159 Tararua Drive, Upper Plain, Masterton 5888 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4394060 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The Tribunal orders continued tenant name suppression.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application for rehearing filed by the landlord. A telephone hearing was convened today to consider that rehearing request.

BACKGROUND

In terms of this rehearing request, the background can be summarised as follows: a. The tenancy commenced on 5 April 2022, ending on 26 August 2022. b. The landlord disputed that the Tribunal had jurisdiction, on the basis that the landlord considered this was a flatting situation (if that was the case, then it would be a dispute for the Disputes Tribunal). c. Given the landlord’s jurisdiction challenge, the Tribunal scheduled a hearings only to consider if the Tribunal had jurisdiction. Following a hearing, the Tribunal issued a decision on 15 November 2022. The Tribunal confirmed that this was a residential tenancy falling within the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The Tribunal also confirmed the correct landlords were Lois Trainor, Ross Trainor and Anya Trainor. d. The landlord instructed counsel, and that decision was appealed to the District Court. e. The District Court dismissed the appeal. That means the Tribunal’s 15 November 2022 order was confirmed and remains. f. Given the appeal had been concluded, the Tribunal then scheduled a hearing to consider the substantive claims from the Tenant. A hearing was scheduled for 6 December 2024 in Masterton before myself. That was notified to the parties on 2 October 2024 by email and text message. g. On 1 December 2024 a reminder email and text message was sent to the parties, again recording the hearing details. h. On 5 December 2024 a further reminder was sent to the parties by email and text. i. The hearing proceeded on 6 December 2024. Only the tenant was in attendance. j. A decision was issued that same day. Some claims from the tenant were not successful, but the Tribunal did make a range of breach findings against the landlord, with the landlord being ordered to pay the tenant $6,320.44. k. The landlord filed an application for rehearing dated 12 December 2024. l. A telephone hearing was convened on 14 February 2025, to consider if the rehearing would be granted. This written decision follows that hearing.

LANDLORDS POSITION

The landlord submitted today that a rehearing should be granted for these reasons: a. Because of injuries sustained in an accident on September 2024, she could not attend the December 2024 hearing, with reference to ACC documents to support those injuries. The landlord states she was in a moon boot and, because of that, had mobility issues. Further she was on pain relief. I raised with the landlord that the application for rehearing records that she went into the courthouse around 3 December (3 days before the hearing), which was not consistent with an absence of mobility. The landlord stated that she needed someone to assist her to get to the courthouse that day, and also was on pain relief. b. I asked why the other landlords (Lois and Ross) could not have attended the hearing. Ms Trainor advised they could not travel because of their age.

TENANTS POSITION

The tenant opposes a rehearing, and submitted: a. The landlord did not have a good excuse for not going to the hearing. The tenant states she has also previously had a moonboot, and was able to walk. b. The tenant notes that she had travelled from [Event location suppressed] for the hearing.

RELEVANT LAW

Section 105 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 relates to rehearings. Subsection 1 confirms that: The Tribunal shall in all proceedings have the power to order a rehearing of the whole or any part of the proceedings on the ground that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur.
The applicant need not establish an actual miscarriage of justice or substantial wrong, only that it may have occurred. However, in the District Court Judgment of 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. [20] Secondly, if a mere erroneous decision is enough, whether the error is factual or legal or both, it would enable parties to in effect appeal any decision twice: once to the very Tribunal which made it by way of an application for rehearing, and then again to the District Court against the grant or refusal of the application for rehearing. Not only does that offend the general hierarchical nature of the appeal system, it would also make the time limit for filing notice of appeal against an original decision nugatory.”
As noted by Judge Christiansen in the District Court appeal of Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC 1993: In this Court’s view the Tribunal’s reasons for refusing a rehearing are correct. Rehearings are about challenges to processes and procedures and are not about what the adjudicator found or the decisions the adjudicator made.

ANALYSIS

I have set out the relevant law that applies to rehearings above. In short, re- hearings are a safety measure should something have gone wrong with the hearing, normally on a procedural basis, in which case a rehearing can be approved so that the matter then returns to the Tribunal for a fresh hearing – that is to start the hearing again.
I have considered the submissions from the landlord at the hearing, and also the reasons she raised in her written rehearing request, and I cannot see any potential for a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice to justify a rehearing, for these reasons.
In terms of what submitted at the hearing today: a. Plainly the landlord was aware of the hearing. I accept that the landlord had contacted the Tribunal (which I will discuss below), but she was aware of the hearing on 6 December 2024. The operation of the Tribunal is no different to the courts, when parties are notified of a hearing, the hearing will proceed unless it is otherwise adjourned. No adjournment was ordered. b. I am not persuaded that there were medical reasons the landlord could not attend the hearing. The landlord pointed to the ACC evidence on file from an accident she sustained on 10 September 2024, involving her lower leg. That was some two months before the hearing on 6 December, and no medical evidence has been produced to support any relevant incapacity into December. c. The landlord states that she had a lack of mobility because of her injuries. I do not accept that, given the landlord’s evidence that she went into the courthouse on 3 December to raise a query about the hearing. If the landlord was able to go to the courthouse for an administrative query, she could have attended for the hearing. d. The Tribunal has confirmed that there are three co-landlords. Ms Trainor states the reason the co-landlords did not attend the hearing was because of their age. While I have not received anything from the co-landlords supporting that, if that was the case they could have appointed a representative to appear on their behalf. The Tribunal has received no representation request / notification for Lois and Ross.
In her application for rehearing, Ms Trainor raised additional matters. Ms Trainor states that when she received the text messages about the hearing, she went to the courthouse to see what was happening because she thought the hearing had been completed. Mr Trainor states that after moving house, she did not have documents in relation to the dispute.
Ms Trainor states that she also telephoned the Ministry of Justice, and was told by the call centre that the hearing had been cancelled. It is difficult to know what to make of that statement because it would be an unusual thing for the Ministry call centre to tell a caller. Further there are no records on the Tribunal file of the call centre having received a call in this case. In fact, there are no notes in the file between 16 August 2024 and 11 December 2024. Normally when there are queries on a file, notes on the electronic file are made. I must conclude there is insufficient evidence to establish the landlord was told the hearing was cancelled.
But I do accept that the landlord had contacted the courthouse, and the courthouse did not respond to her. That is unfortunate, a response should have been provided. But what remains is that the landlord was notified of the hearing (she accepted she was), it was not adjourned, so the landlords needed to attend as scheduled.
I am also minded that the landlord was around that time receiving advice from a legal practitioner on this matter (the landlord has indicated that in the written rehearing application). It would be likely that the landlord would have been advised the hearing would proceed unless adjourned if that was raised with the lawyer.
For the above reasons, I find that the landlord has not established grounds to approve an adjournment, so the rehearing application is dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application for rehearing filed by the landlord. A telephone hearing was convened today to consider that rehearing request.

BACKGROUND

In terms of this rehearing request, the background can be summarised as follows: a. The tenancy commenced on 5 April 2022, ending on 26 August 2022. b. The landlord disputed that the Tribunal had jurisdiction, on the basis that the landlord considered this was a flatting situation (if that was the case, then it would be a dispute for the Disputes Tribunal). c. Given the landlord’s jurisdiction challenge, the Tribunal scheduled a hearings only to consider if the Tribunal had jurisdiction. Following a hearing, the Tribunal issued a decision on 15 November 2022. The Tribunal confirmed that this was a residential tenancy falling within the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The Tribunal also confirmed the correct landlords were Lois Trainor, Ross Trainor and Anya Trainor. d. The landlord instructed counsel, and that decision was appealed to the District Court. e. The District Court dismissed the appeal. That means the Tribunal’s 15 November 2022 order was confirmed and remains. f. Given the appeal had been concluded, the Tribunal then scheduled a hearing to consider the substantive claims from the Tenant. A hearing was scheduled for 6 December 2024 in Masterton before myself. That was notified to the parties on 2 October 2024 by email and text message. g. On 1 December 2024 a reminder email and text message was sent to the parties, again recording the hearing details. h. On 5 December 2024 a further reminder was sent to the parties by email and text. i. The hearing proceeded on 6 December 2024. Only the tenant was in attendance. j. A decision was issued that same day. Some claims from the tenant were not successful, but the Tribunal did make a range of breach findings against the landlord, with the landlord being ordered to pay the tenant $6,320.44. k. The landlord filed an application for rehearing dated 12 December 2024. l. A telephone hearing was convened on 14 February 2025, to consider if the rehearing would be granted. This written decision follows that hearing.

LANDLORDS POSITION

The landlord submitted today that a rehearing should be granted for these reasons: a. Because of injuries sustained in an accident on September 2024, she could not attend the December 2024 hearing, with reference to ACC documents to support those injuries. The landlord states she was in a moon boot and, because of that, had mobility issues. Further she was on pain relief. I raised with the landlord that the application for rehearing records that she went into the courthouse around 3 December (3 days before the hearing), which was not consistent with an absence of mobility. The landlord stated that she needed someone to assist her to get to the courthouse that day, and also was on pain relief. b. I asked why the other landlords (Lois and Ross) could not have attended the hearing. Ms Trainor advised they could not travel because of their age.

TENANTS POSITION

The tenant opposes a rehearing, and submitted: a. The landlord did not have a good excuse for not going to the hearing. The tenant states she has also previously had a moonboot, and was able to walk. b. The tenant notes that she had travelled from [Event location suppressed] for the hearing.

RELEVANT LAW

Section 105 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 relates to rehearings. Subsection 1 confirms that: The Tribunal shall in all proceedings have the power to order a rehearing of the whole or any part of the proceedings on the ground that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur.

The applicant need not establish an actual miscarriage of justice or substantial wrong, only that it may have occurred. However, in the District Court Judgment of 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. [20] Secondly, if a mere erroneous decision is enough, whether the error is factual or legal or both, it would enable parties to in effect appeal any decision twice: once to the very Tribunal which made it by way of an application for rehearing, and then again to the District Court against the grant or refusal of the application for rehearing. Not only does that offend the general hierarchical nature of the appeal system, it would also make the time limit for filing notice of appeal against an original decision nugatory.”

As noted by Judge Christiansen in the District Court appeal of Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC 1993: In this Court’s view the Tribunal’s reasons for refusing a rehearing are correct. Rehearings are about challenges to processes and procedures and are not about what the adjudicator found or the decisions the adjudicator made.

ANALYSIS

I have set out the relevant law that applies to rehearings above. In short, re- hearings are a safety measure should something have gone wrong with the hearing, normally on a procedural basis, in which case a rehearing can be approved so that the matter then returns to the Tribunal for a fresh hearing – that is to start the hearing again.

I have considered the submissions from the landlord at the hearing, and also the reasons she raised in her written rehearing request, and I cannot see any potential for a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice to justify a rehearing, for these reasons.

In terms of what submitted at the hearing today: a. Plainly the landlord was aware of the hearing. I accept that the landlord had contacted the Tribunal (which I will discuss below), but she was aware of the hearing on 6 December 2024. The operation of the Tribunal is no different to the courts, when parties are notified of a hearing, the hearing will proceed unless it is otherwise adjourned. No adjournment was ordered. b. I am not persuaded that there were medical reasons the landlord could not attend the hearing. The landlord pointed to the ACC evidence on file from an accident she sustained on 10 September 2024, involving her lower leg. That was some two months before the hearing on 6 December, and no medical evidence has been produced to support any relevant incapacity into December. c. The landlord states that she had a lack of mobility because of her injuries. I do not accept that, given the landlord’s evidence that she went into the courthouse on 3 December to raise a query about the hearing. If the landlord was able to go to the courthouse for an administrative query, she could have attended for the hearing. d. The Tribunal has confirmed that there are three co-landlords. Ms Trainor states the reason the co-landlords did not attend the hearing was because of their age. While I have not received anything from the co-landlords supporting that, if that was the case they could have appointed a representative to appear on their behalf. The Tribunal has received no representation request / notification for Lois and Ross.

In her application for rehearing, Ms Trainor raised additional matters. Ms Trainor states that when she received the text messages about the hearing, she went to the courthouse to see what was happening because she thought the hearing had been completed. Mr Trainor states that after moving house, she did not have documents in relation to the dispute.

Ms Trainor states that she also telephoned the Ministry of Justice, and was told by the call centre that the hearing had been cancelled. It is difficult to know what to make of that statement because it would be an unusual thing for the Ministry call centre to tell a caller. Further there are no records on the Tribunal file of the call centre having received a call in this case. In fact, there are no notes in the file between 16 August 2024 and 11 December 2024. Normally when there are queries on a file, notes on the electronic file are made. I must conclude there is insufficient evidence to establish the landlord was told the hearing was cancelled.

But I do accept that the landlord had contacted the courthouse, and the courthouse did not respond to her. That is unfortunate, a response should have been provided. But what remains is that the landlord was notified of the hearing (she accepted she was), it was not adjourned, so the landlords needed to attend as scheduled.

I am also minded that the landlord was around that time receiving advice from a legal practitioner on this matter (the landlord has indicated that in the written rehearing application). It would be likely that the landlord would have been advised the hearing would proceed unless adjourned if that was raised with the lawyer.

For the above reasons, I find that the landlord has not established grounds to approve an adjournment, so the rehearing application is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4394060 — Tenancy dispute at 159 Tararua Drive, Upper Plain, Masterton 5888

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4394060 — Tenancy dispute at 159 Tararua Drive, Upper Plain, Masterton 5888

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

LANDLORDS POSITION

TENANTS POSITION

RELEVANT LAW

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

LANDLORDS POSITION

TENANTS POSITION

RELEVANT LAW

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions