What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4489582?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4489582?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4489582?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4489582?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9594778-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4489582?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4489582?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4489582?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4489582?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9594778-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

78 St Andrews Terrace, Saint Andrews, Hamilton 3200 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4489582 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing of the rehearing application, conducted via teleconference on 1 November 2023.

Shelley Boardman had applied for an out-of-time rehearing of the Tribunal order dated 3 April 2023.

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 Shelley Boardman has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

I believe the tenant was aware of the first hearing. The contact email and telephone that was used for all related messaging are the same as those used in the rehearing application and for the subsequent teleconference hearing. Given that, and the time delay in the rehearing application being made, made the actual allowance of an out-of-time application marginal. I erred toward the tenant’s interests in allowing it.

There were no other matters in the application that raised a possible issue that would justify a rehearing.

The tenant indicated she had substantial issues regarding this tenancy she wanted to raise via her own application.

The landlord agreed that if any such tenant application was lodged, the determination of that with this via a rehearing, might be a reasonable determination. I advised the parties I would hold off my decision regarding this request for a rehearing until Friday 17 November 2023 to see if any tenant application was submitted. There is no record in the system of any such lodgement.

The tenant is free to progress any application within the appropriate statutory provisions but it is unacceptable to delay any further the landlord’s right to seek enforcement of the order of 3 April 2023.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing of the rehearing application, conducted via teleconference on 1 November 2023.

Shelley Boardman had applied for an out-of-time rehearing of the Tribunal order dated 3 April 2023.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons Shelley Boardman has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

There were no other matters in the application that raised a possible issue that would justify a rehearing.

The tenant indicated she had substantial issues regarding this tenancy she wanted to raise via her own application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4489582 — Tenancy dispute at 78 St Andrews Terrace, Saint Andrews, Hamilton 3200

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4489582 — Tenancy dispute at 78 St Andrews Terrace, Saint Andrews, Hamilton 3200

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