What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4532949 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s name and identifying details, including the premises address

How much money was awarded in case 4532949?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4532949?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4532949?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9793467-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4532949 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s name and identifying details, including the premises address

How much money was awarded in case 4532949?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4532949?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4532949?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9793467-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Lynfield, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4532949 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The tenant’s name and identifying details, including the premises address must not be published.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 2 August 2023, the Tribunal dismissed the landlord’s application for costs for the tenant allegedly breaching his end of tenancy obligations and damaging the premises.
On 5 August 2023, the landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that the Tribunal ignored evidence, was silent on the tenant’s personal remarks, considered a false letter that was not shown to the landlord, and ignored morality of right and wrong. 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?

At the hearing today, Mr Malhotra submitted the Tribunal had ignored the evidence of damage. He questioned his property manager’s letter recommending the tenant to future landlords. He confirmed he disagreed with his property manager about what was wear and tear and what was damage.
The tenant said he had no idea why the landlord brought proceedings because he looked after the premises well and left them clean and tidy. He said the landlord’s claim had caused him immense stress and led to him losing his job and caused tensions in his family. He gave the landlord a copy of his property manager’s letter of recommendation.
The Tribunal carefully considered all the evidence which happened to be strongly in favour of the tenant being without fault. The Tribunal listened to the tenant’s remarks. It is not bound to recite all a parties’ comments in a hearing and that would not be practical. The landlord produced nothing to indicate his property manager’s letter of recommendation was false. The Tribunal decided the claim on a principled basis in accordance with morality.
As mentioned, a rehearing cannot be granted just because a party is unhappy with the decision. The landlord has provided nothing that sensibly calls the Tribunal’s decision-making process into question.
The application is dismissed.
The tenant’s name is suppressed for the reasons previously given.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

On 2 August 2023, the Tribunal dismissed the landlord’s application for costs for the tenant allegedly breaching his end of tenancy obligations and damaging the premises.

On 5 August 2023, the landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that the Tribunal ignored evidence, was silent on the tenant’s personal remarks, considered a false letter that was not shown to the landlord, and ignored morality of right and wrong. 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?

At the hearing today, Mr Malhotra submitted the Tribunal had ignored the evidence of damage. He questioned his property manager’s letter recommending the tenant to future landlords. He confirmed he disagreed with his property manager about what was wear and tear and what was damage.

The tenant said he had no idea why the landlord brought proceedings because he looked after the premises well and left them clean and tidy. He said the landlord’s claim had caused him immense stress and led to him losing his job and caused tensions in his family. He gave the landlord a copy of his property manager’s letter of recommendation.

The Tribunal carefully considered all the evidence which happened to be strongly in favour of the tenant being without fault. The Tribunal listened to the tenant’s remarks. It is not bound to recite all a parties’ comments in a hearing and that would not be practical. The landlord produced nothing to indicate his property manager’s letter of recommendation was false. The Tribunal decided the claim on a principled basis in accordance with morality.

As mentioned, a rehearing cannot be granted just because a party is unhappy with the decision. The landlord has provided nothing that sensibly calls the Tribunal’s decision-making process into question.

The application is dismissed.

The tenant’s name is suppressed for the reasons previously given.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4532949 — Tenancy dispute in Lynfield, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4532949 — Tenancy dispute in Lynfield, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions