What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4556369?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4556369?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4556369?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4556369?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9189227-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4556369?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4556369?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4556369?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4556369?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9189227-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

61 Rhodes Street, Waimate, Waimate 7924 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4556369 — Exemplary damages

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by telephone. An attempt was made to join the tenant by telephone, but the call went to voice mail. The hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence.

On 13 June 2023 the Tribunal made an order for compensation, repairs and refund of the bond.

On 13 June 2023, Michelle Ann Hutchison applied for a rehearing on the grounds that relevant evidence was not available at the hearing and therefore was not considered by the Adjudicator.

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 Michelle Ann Hutchison has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

The evidence that the landlord says was not available at the hearing was forensic test results on the fire ash that was in the fireplace at the end of the tenancy. The landlord states that that evidence shows that the tenant brought and used methamphetamine in the premises.

The landlord evidence is that the testing on the fire ash was carried out some time around 8 June 2023 and the results were not available until late on the day of hearing, 13 June 2023.

The tenant moved out of the premises on 2 May 2023 and the testing was carried out around a month later.

There are several issues which would impact on whether the Tribunal could make a finding of methamphetamine contamination in this situation, being; (a) There was no pre-tenancy methamphetamine testing of the premises 1 ; (b) There was a delay between the tenant moving out and the post tenancy methamphetamine testing; (c) The evidence of the test results from the fire ash was not produced; (d) On the evidence submitted by the landlord, the test results did not show methamphetamine to the Gluckman 2 level of 15μg/100cm 2 and therefore does not amount to contamination 3 .

The evidence that was not available at the hearing is unlikely to have changed the decision in relation to methamphetamine contamination and the claim for exemplary damages which was unsuccessful. 1 Eren Limited v Martin & Kukuruzsnayak NZDC 15210 2 Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, "Methamphetamine contamination in residential properties: Exposures, risk levels, and interpretation of standards” (May 2018). 3 Barfoot and Thompson Limited v Kāhui Tū Kaha Limited [2021] NZTT Auckland 4276319

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by telephone. An attempt was made to join the tenant by telephone, but the call went to voice mail. The hearing proceeded in the tenant’s absence.

On 13 June 2023 the Tribunal made an order for compensation, repairs and refund of the bond.

On 13 June 2023, Michelle Ann Hutchison applied for a rehearing on the grounds that relevant evidence was not available at the hearing and therefore was not considered by the Adjudicator.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons Michelle Ann Hutchison has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

The landlord evidence is that the testing on the fire ash was carried out some time around 8 June 2023 and the results were not available until late on the day of hearing, 13 June 2023.

The tenant moved out of the premises on 2 May 2023 and the testing was carried out around a month later.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4556369 — Exemplary damages at 61 Rhodes Street, Waimate, Waimate 7924

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4556369 — Exemplary damages at 61 Rhodes Street, Waimate, Waimate 7924

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