What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4495434?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

How much money was awarded in case 4495434?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4495434?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4495434?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9199308-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4495434?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.

How much money was awarded in case 4495434?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4495434?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4495434?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9199308-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

28 Cambridge Street, Patea, Patea 4520 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4495434 — Exemplary damages

Order

No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The landlord’s application for a re-hearing is dismissed and the stay in my order in this case dated 10 July 2023 is lifted.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing. The tenant requested an adjournment via email in the evening before the hearing.
On the morning of the hearing the Tribunal declined the adjournment request but took the additional step, including at the hearing itself, of trying to contact the tenant by telephone. The tenant did not answer. The hearing proceeded in her absence as she has had notice of this hearing.
On 28 June 2023 the Tribunal made an order for damages relating to the use of the property and exemplary damages arising from breaches of s 45 RTA. The Tribunal also awarded the tenant the return of her bond.
On 28 June 2023 the landlord applied for a rehearing. At the hearing the landlord provided me with written submissions setting out that her grounds for a rehearing are, that the Tribunal: i. improperly admitted or rejected evidence; ii. new evidence becoming available.
The landlord set out in her written submissions the various points she wanted to make.
In making this decision I have considered all of the pages of written submissions and the oral submissions made. I have not referred to every point individually but they are all addressed by the reasons below.
The usual practice of the Tenancy Tribunal is that a rehearing application is considered by the original adjudicator who made the decision which the applicant is seeking to have reheard (Fetherston v Lee, DC North Shore, CIV- 2012-044-001127, 7 May 2013).

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons the landlord has failed to establish the grounds for a 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.
Importantly, 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.
Many of the points raised by the landlord in her submissions relate to findings of fact and/or the application of the law. These do not form grounds for a rehearing. For example, questioning the legislation to ask if the whole property must be available or challenging if exemplary damages were awarded correctly or are deserved in the circumstances, relates to the application of the law and the application of the law to the facts. Her view, for example, that the premises were actually clean, the oven was working, and misunderstanding evidence are challenges to findings of fact.
The landlord seeks to provide additional information/make submissions by each clause of the decision. 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 landlord has not established grounds for a rehearing on this basis. In other words, it is not a ground for a re-hearing on the basis that the landlord does not like the findings the Tribunal made and its application of the law to the facts.
The landlord says she was interrupted by the adjudicator. I find that the landlord has not established grounds for a rehearing on this basis. The hearing was conducted in a structured approach so that the parties could be directed to provide relevant evidence. The Tribunal has the power to refuse to accept any evidence or submission that is irrelevant or repetitious (s 97(4) RTA). In any event, the landlord was given ample opportunity to put forward her case. She also provided detailed written submissions. Each portion of the claim was carefully concluded before moving on to the next element of the claim. Parties were frequently asked throughout the hearing if they had anything more to say in relation to the part of the claim being worked through before the next item was addressed.
The landlord says she was not told about the weight of witness evidence. It is up to the landlord to present her best case at the time of the hearing. It is not for the Tribunal to tell her how to do this. This is not a ground for a rehearing.
The landlord says that her witness can now provide me with additional new evidence that was not presented at the last hearing. I also note that the landlord also refers to further evidence from the real estate agent. A re- hearing is not granted to give a party a second opportunity to present their case. There is nothing to suggest that this new evidence was not reasonably available at the hearing. The landlord needed to bring her best available evidence, including any witnesses to the hearing. The landlord has not established grounds for a rehearing on this basis.
I have carefully considered the position in relation to the video and audio evidence that the landlord says she was unable to show me this because the way the hearing concluded abruptly.
I specifically heard the landlord’s submissions and evidence in relation to damages separately once the tenant had left the hearing (as set out in paragraphs 6 to 9 of the order dated 28 June 2023). The landlord made submissions at that time about her safety. A transcript of a recording between the landlord and the tenant was also provided. As set out above the Tribunal has the power to refuse to accept any evidence or submission that is irrelevant or repetitious. This video evidence may have been relevant to claims relating to anti-social behaviour, but these claims were dismissed as the tenant had left the hearing. Given the nature of the breaches proven, it was not necessary to view video/audio evidence relating to anti-social behaviour to make the damages award.
I have not awarded name suppression. The landlord has not been successful in this application, and I do not consider there to be any other compelling reason to award suppression. The interests of open justice and the public interest outweigh the case for suppression (s 95A, RTA).

Order

No suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The landlord’s application for a re-hearing is dismissed and the stay in my order in this case dated 10 July 2023 is lifted.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended the hearing. The tenant requested an adjournment via email in the evening before the hearing.
On the morning of the hearing the Tribunal declined the adjournment request but took the additional step, including at the hearing itself, of trying to contact the tenant by telephone. The tenant did not answer. The hearing proceeded in her absence as she has had notice of this hearing.
On 28 June 2023 the Tribunal made an order for damages relating to the use of the property and exemplary damages arising from breaches of s 45 RTA. The Tribunal also awarded the tenant the return of her bond.
On 28 June 2023 the landlord applied for a rehearing. At the hearing the landlord provided me with written submissions setting out that her grounds for a rehearing are, that the Tribunal: i. improperly admitted or rejected evidence; ii. new evidence becoming available.
The landlord set out in her written submissions the various points she wanted to make.
In making this decision I have considered all of the pages of written submissions and the oral submissions made. I have not referred to every point individually but they are all addressed by the reasons below.
The usual practice of the Tenancy Tribunal is that a rehearing application is considered by the original adjudicator who made the decision which the applicant is seeking to have reheard (Fetherston v Lee, DC North Shore, CIV- 2012-044-001127, 7 May 2013).

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons the landlord has failed to establish the grounds for a 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.
Importantly, 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.
Many of the points raised by the landlord in her submissions relate to findings of fact and/or the application of the law. These do not form grounds for a rehearing. For example, questioning the legislation to ask if the whole property must be available or challenging if exemplary damages were awarded correctly or are deserved in the circumstances, relates to the application of the law and the application of the law to the facts. Her view, for example, that the premises were actually clean, the oven was working, and misunderstanding evidence are challenges to findings of fact.
The landlord seeks to provide additional information/make submissions by each clause of the decision. 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 landlord has not established grounds for a rehearing on this basis. In other words, it is not a ground for a re-hearing on the basis that the landlord does not like the findings the Tribunal made and its application of the law to the facts.
The landlord says she was interrupted by the adjudicator. I find that the landlord has not established grounds for a rehearing on this basis. The hearing was conducted in a structured approach so that the parties could be directed to provide relevant evidence. The Tribunal has the power to refuse to accept any evidence or submission that is irrelevant or repetitious (s 97(4) RTA). In any event, the landlord was given ample opportunity to put forward her case. She also provided detailed written submissions. Each portion of the claim was carefully concluded before moving on to the next element of the claim. Parties were frequently asked throughout the hearing if they had anything more to say in relation to the part of the claim being worked through before the next item was addressed.
The landlord says she was not told about the weight of witness evidence. It is up to the landlord to present her best case at the time of the hearing. It is not for the Tribunal to tell her how to do this. This is not a ground for a rehearing.
The landlord says that her witness can now provide me with additional new evidence that was not presented at the last hearing. I also note that the landlord also refers to further evidence from the real estate agent. A re- hearing is not granted to give a party a second opportunity to present their case. There is nothing to suggest that this new evidence was not reasonably available at the hearing. The landlord needed to bring her best available evidence, including any witnesses to the hearing. The landlord has not established grounds for a rehearing on this basis.
I have carefully considered the position in relation to the video and audio evidence that the landlord says she was unable to show me this because the way the hearing concluded abruptly.
I specifically heard the landlord’s submissions and evidence in relation to damages separately once the tenant had left the hearing (as set out in paragraphs 6 to 9 of the order dated 28 June 2023). The landlord made submissions at that time about her safety. A transcript of a recording between the landlord and the tenant was also provided. As set out above the Tribunal has the power to refuse to accept any evidence or submission that is irrelevant or repetitious. This video evidence may have been relevant to claims relating to anti-social behaviour, but these claims were dismissed as the tenant had left the hearing. Given the nature of the breaches proven, it was not necessary to view video/audio evidence relating to anti-social behaviour to make the damages award.
I have not awarded name suppression. The landlord has not been successful in this application, and I do not consider there to be any other compelling reason to award suppression. The interests of open justice and the public interest outweigh the case for suppression (s 95A, RTA).

Tenancy Tribunal case 4495434 — Exemplary damages at 28 Cambridge Street, Patea, Patea 4520

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4495434 — Exemplary damages at 28 Cambridge Street, Patea, Patea 4520

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions