What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4544333 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4544333?

For A Breach Of Quiet Enjoyment Not: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord; Pay Harry Max Richmond Rex: $4,453.87 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4544333?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4544333?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10712610-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4544333 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4544333?

For A Breach Of Quiet Enjoyment Not: $2,000.00 awarded to landlord; Pay Harry Max Richmond Rex: $4,453.87 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4544333?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4544333?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10712610-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

7 Matata Street, Blockhouse Bay, Auckland 0600 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4544333 — Exemplary damages

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4544333. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
for a breach of quiet enjoyment not	$2,000.00		for a breach of quiet enjoyment not
pay Harry Max Richmond Rex	$4,453.87		pay Harry Max Richmond Rex

Order

and CORRIGENDUM TO ORDER DATED 11 April 2024.

The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The order issued on 11 April 2024 is amended to the extent that order 2 should be read as the Tribunal ordering the landlord to pay exemplary damages of $3000.00 for a breach of quiet enjoyment not $2000 as was incorrectly recorded in the order. Order 2 should be amended to read: Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited As Agent For Rujun Li must pay [The tenant/s] $4,453.87 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing to consider Mr Rex’s rehearing application.
Mr Rex seeks a rehearing on the following basis: a) That there is a mistake in the order for exemplary damages in the order of 11 April 2024, in that the order records an award of $2000.00 but the reasons state an amount of $3000.00 is awarded. b) That the calculation of rent owed is incorrect. c) That the Tribunal has not awarded compensation that reflects the time that Mr Rex and his partner had off work, due to ill health which they say as a resulted from the contaminated soil being dumped on the property. d) That the Tribunal has not considered the poor behaviour of the landlord in seeking a payment from the bond of amounts not owed. Incorrect Exemplary damages amount in the Order.
I accept that there has been a typing and correspondingly a calculation error in the table, in paragraph of my decision of 11 April I awarded Mr Rex $3000.00 exemplary damages for the breach of quiet enjoyment. In the order this was only recorded as $2000.00. This is incorrect it was my intention to award $3000.00 and the table should be amended accordingly.
When an order requires amendment because of a typing error or calculation error then the tribunal is able to issue an amendment to the order called a corrigendum to Order and I have done this to reflect my mistake. The relevant law.
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.
In Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, the District Court 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 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. [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.
For the following reasons Mr Rex has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing. a) The Tribunal’s calculation of the rent and the amount of compensation awarded is a finding of fact and therefore is not a ground for rehearing. If a party is dissatisfied with the Tribunal’s finding of fact, or the amount of compensation or exemplary damages awarded then that is a matter of appeal not a ground for rehearing. b) There is no new evidence, that was not reasonably available at the hearings. The medical evidence provided after the hearing did not show any link between the medical conditions suffered by the tenant and his partner and the soil that was dumped. c) The landlord’s behaviour regarding the bond was discussed at the first hearing. As recorded in my decision of the 3 July 2023 the landlord made a one-party application for the bond pursuant to s22A of the RTA. The bond paid to the landlord in the bond was taken into account when awarding the rent overpayment in my order of 11 April 2024.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4544333. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
for a breach of quiet enjoyment not	$2,000.00		for a breach of quiet enjoyment not
pay Harry Max Richmond Rex	$4,453.87		pay Harry Max Richmond Rex

Order

and CORRIGENDUM TO ORDER DATED 11 April 2024.

The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The order issued on 11 April 2024 is amended to the extent that order 2 should be read as the Tribunal ordering the landlord to pay exemplary damages of $3000.00 for a breach of quiet enjoyment not $2000 as was incorrectly recorded in the order. Order 2 should be amended to read: Ray White Remuera Property Management Limited As Agent For Rujun Li must pay [The tenant/s] $4,453.87 immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing to consider Mr Rex’s rehearing application.
Mr Rex seeks a rehearing on the following basis: a) That there is a mistake in the order for exemplary damages in the order of 11 April 2024, in that the order records an award of $2000.00 but the reasons state an amount of $3000.00 is awarded. b) That the calculation of rent owed is incorrect. c) That the Tribunal has not awarded compensation that reflects the time that Mr Rex and his partner had off work, due to ill health which they say as a resulted from the contaminated soil being dumped on the property. d) That the Tribunal has not considered the poor behaviour of the landlord in seeking a payment from the bond of amounts not owed. Incorrect Exemplary damages amount in the Order.
I accept that there has been a typing and correspondingly a calculation error in the table, in paragraph of my decision of 11 April I awarded Mr Rex $3000.00 exemplary damages for the breach of quiet enjoyment. In the order this was only recorded as $2000.00. This is incorrect it was my intention to award $3000.00 and the table should be amended accordingly.
When an order requires amendment because of a typing error or calculation error then the tribunal is able to issue an amendment to the order called a corrigendum to Order and I have done this to reflect my mistake. The relevant law.
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.
In Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, the District Court 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 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. [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.
For the following reasons Mr Rex has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing. a) The Tribunal’s calculation of the rent and the amount of compensation awarded is a finding of fact and therefore is not a ground for rehearing. If a party is dissatisfied with the Tribunal’s finding of fact, or the amount of compensation or exemplary damages awarded then that is a matter of appeal not a ground for rehearing. b) There is no new evidence, that was not reasonably available at the hearings. The medical evidence provided after the hearing did not show any link between the medical conditions suffered by the tenant and his partner and the soil that was dumped. c) The landlord’s behaviour regarding the bond was discussed at the first hearing. As recorded in my decision of the 3 July 2023 the landlord made a one-party application for the bond pursuant to s22A of the RTA. The bond paid to the landlord in the bond was taken into account when awarding the rent overpayment in my order of 11 April 2024.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4544333 — Exemplary damages at 7 Matata Street, Blockhouse Bay, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4544333 — Exemplary damages at 7 Matata Street, Blockhouse Bay, Auckland 0600

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions