What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4563249?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4563249?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4563249?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4563249?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9943425-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4563249?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4563249?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4563249?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Healthy homes, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4563249?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9943425-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

29 Palliser Lane, Browns Bay, Auckland 0630 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4563249 — Leaks

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

29 Palliser Lane, Browns Bay, Auckland 0630 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4563249 — Leaks | TenantCheck

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal has received an application for a rehearing, filed by the tenant. The Tribunal must determine whether a rehearing will be granted.

BACKGROUND

The tenant filed an application with the Tribunal seeking $80,000 in compensation from the landlord.
A hearing was scheduled on 1 June 2023. That hearing was adjourned because the landlord needed further time to prepare for the hearing.
The hearing was rescheduled to 24 August 2023 in the North Short District Courthouse.
Also on 24 August 2023 the Tribunal issued a decision. The Tribunal ordered the landlord to pay compensation to the tenant for a water leak, and exemplary damages for a retaliatory notice, the total to be paid was $3,320.44. However the Tribunal dismissed the tenants claims around the Healthy Homes Standards, failure to maintain and an order prohibiting re-renting the premises.
On 25 August 2023 the tenant applied for a rehearing.
I directed that a telephone hearing be scheduled to consider the tenant’s rehearing request. At the hearing today, both the tenant and landlord attended, and the hearing was translated into Mandarin for the landlord.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Section 105 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 relates to rehearing’s. Subsection 1 confirms that: The Tribunal shall in all proceedings have the power to order a rehearing of the whole or any part of the proceedings on the ground that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur.
The applicant need not establish an actual miscarriage of justice or substantial wrong, only that it may have occurred. However, in the District Court Judgment of 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. [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.
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 Jemma Trust v Rutherford (DC North Shore, CIV-2009-044-2056, 11 December 1999), the District Court quoted an extract from the Court of Appeal outlining the relevant considerations: The principles upon which further evidence is admitted are designed to balance the interests of the person seeking to adduce such evidence on the one hand with the interests of the opposite party is on the other. They are also designed to reflect the public interest in ensuring, so far as is possible, that parties put up their best case at trial. Any other approach would be very wasteful of public resources. The conventional requirements are that the further evidence must be fresh, it must be credible and it must be cogent. Evidence is not regarded as fresh if it could with reasonable diligence have been produced at the trial....While the absence of freshness is not an absolute disqualification, the criteria for admission in such circumstances must be very strict. In our view, when the evidence is not fresh it should not be admitted unless the circumstances are exceptional and the grounds compelling.
As noted by Judge Christiansen in the District Court appeal of Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC 1993: In this Court’s view the Tribunal’s reasons for refusing a rehearing are correct. Rehearings are about challenges to processes and procedures and are not about what the adjudicator found or the decisions the adjudicator made.

PARTIES CASES

Mr Walker advised that a rehearing should be granted for these reasons: a. The written material was not referred to in the decision. Mr Walker would like an opportunity to represent this material again, because he does not consider it was looked at by the adjudicator. b. The process was not as described by Tenancy Services or on the Tenancy website. Mr Walker states that was told a lawyer should not be used because it was a Tribunal not a court hearing. The Tenancy Services phone line referred him to the Tenancy Services website. Mr Walker was not sure what date that advice was given to him.
In response the landlord states that she had considered the order, and she agrees with it, and accepts it.

ANALYSIS

The Tribunal issued a decision in August 2023, the tenant applies for a rehearing from that, and I must now determine whether a rehearing will be granted.
The tenants application for a hearing is presented on two broad grounds, which I will consider in turn. Written material not considered.
Mr Walker considers that the written material he filed with the Tribunal was not referred to in the decision and therefore not considered. Mr Walker would like an opportunity to represent this material again, because he does not consider it was looked at.
It is the case that Mr Walker has filed a wide range of evidence comprising photographs, emails, and other documentation setting out his case. Mr Walker considers that this material was not considered by the Tribunal, which is not correct. Just because the material was not recorded in the decision, does not mean it was not considered.
Except in the simplest of cases, it is normally seen that a decision maker will not record all of the documentary (or other) evidence filed. I note for example the District Court decision of Repia v Walsh Trust (DC Waitakere CIV 2011- 090-56), in which the Judge observed: In writing a decision which will necessarily involve an explanation of the outcome, an adjudicator or Judge seeks usefully and fairly to select from the whole of what has been presented that which, in his or her judgement, will serve to explain the reasons for the conclusions reached. That, indeed, is part of the very process of adjudication.
Certainly the focus of the decision is around what the parties said at the hearing. The reason for that, is that normally what the parties say in a hearing are the critical things for their case. An adjudicator will normally refer back to the documentary material when considering the oral submissions. While hearings in the senior courts focus largely on written submissions, that is not the case with Tribunals such as the Tenancy Tribunal. Parties are not often legally represented, and we have no expectation that written submissions be filed in advance. In fact I note that the High Court has confirmed that evidence does not need to be filed in advance of a tenancy hearing, all that is needed is for a party to have an idea of the substance of the claims. The High Court in Lwee & Yap v Tenancy Tribunal & Turner HC Christchurch CIV-2013-409- 000583, 27 June 2013 confirmed: Section 96 confirms that it is for the Tribunal to regulate its procedure generally. It seems to me that in light of the Act practical simplicity, knowledge of the substance of the opponents’ case and a speedy hearing and resolution of the dispute are the touchstones which must be met by an adjudicator in order to ensure a fair hearing.
Furthermore, there is a natural justice expectation for the opposing side know the claim against them, and have an opportunity to respond to it. Obviously when matters are raised orally at the hearing, then the opposing side knows that they should respond. In particularly complex cases such as this, when there is dense documentary material on file, if the Tribunal were to make orders in relation to particular matters raised in writing, but not raised orally, then the opposing side might rightfully claim that their natural justice expectations have been breached.
In this case I make the observation that the order from 24 August 2023 includes a number of long quotations, such as from emails, which were found in the Tribunal’s file, supporting that the file has been considered.
It is also relevant to note that the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the Tribunal act expeditiously when considering disputes. In that regard the long title to the RTA includes intention on the part of the legislature to “establish a tribunal to determine expeditiously disputes arising between such landlords and tenants, “
That expectation is confirmed in section 85 of the RTA sets out the manner in which the Tenancy Tribunal is to exercise its jurisdiction, and that includes that: (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2) The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.
I note that approach required of the Tribunal from section 85 was considered by the District Court in Nixon v Geal-Otter (DC North Shore TT 216/94, 6 December 1995), in which the Judge commented: The long title to the Act includes as part of the philosophy of the Act, expeditious determination of disputes. The Tribunal and the District Court must adopt an approach which protects that philosophy. Section 85 elaborates on the philosophy, requiring jurisdiction to be applied in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes, and injuncts that disputes should be determined in accordance with general principles of law and substantial merits and justice but not so as to be bound to give effect to strict legal forms or technicality. There must be an approach that reflects a broad intuitive sense of propriety in the circumstances of each case and recognises the overall impression and sense of fairness and equity. The broadness of this approach imports a recognition of earthy commonsense to resolutions which could be marginalised if the Tribunal and Courts slavishly applied technically correct legal niceties to allow claims such as for example in this case $20 for lawn mowing. Such an approach would open a door for unacceptable cluttering of a resolution process intended to be expeditious, particularly where disputes are over matters of minutia.
I am satisfied that Mr Walker had a fair opportunity to present his case, and I am not persuaded that any substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice (or potential for that) arises in this case from the Tribunal’s consideration of the documentation on file. Tenant not expecting a hearing
Mr Walker stated that the process he experience at the hearing was not as described by Tenancy Services or on the Tenancy website. Mr Walker states that was told a lawyer should not be used because it was a Tribunal not a court hearing. Mr Walker states that the Tenancy Services phone line operator referred him to the Tenancy Services website. Mr Walker was not sure what date that call was.
I note that I have reviewed the notes taken by Tenancy Services, but I cannot find any entry where Mr Walker phoned Tenancy Services for advice.
However, if Tenancy Services did provide advice, I am not persuaded that Mr Walker has been misled as to the process.
In his application for rehearing, Mr Walker states: I was told the first meeting would be a face-to-face to clarify both parties positions and attempt to reach an agreement. After receiving the order from the Tribunal, I’m now aware it was the final hearing for the court to make the given order. I did not understand that when the adjudicator stated a ‘ruling’ would be sent out, meant a court order would be issued.
It is not the process of the Tenancy Tribunal, and to my knowledge nor has it ever been, that the Tribunal would convene a meeting, or initial hearing face- to-face, in order to clarify both parties positions. The Tribunal simply does not follow that process, and I would be very surprised if that advice was given to a party to a Tenancy Tribunal hearing. Case conferences may be ordered in complex cases, but they are generally by telephone. I had questioned whether Mr Walker may have been mistakenly thinking that this was a mediation with Tenancy Services, but very few mediations occur face-to-face, they are a very different process to a hearing.
The hearing on 24 August 2023 was notified to the parties by way of a hearing notice dated 18 July 2023. In my view, that notice squarely informs the parties that the proceeding is a hearing in which the dispute would be determined. The notice says:

What happens at the Tenancy Tribunal?

Both of you (landlord and tenant) tell your story. You may find it useful to write down all the facts so you can present them briefly and clearly. You may be asked questions by the Adjudicator or the other party. If you have witnesses they can be called to give evidence. They usually have to wait outside the courtroom until they are called. If your witnesses are unable to attend, special provisions can be made. If they refuse to attend they can be summonsed. You will need to contact the Ministry of Justice to apply for a witness summons at least five working days before the hearing. Unsworn statements or letters from witnesses might be admitted as evidence but will not carry as much weight as if they are present. The Adjudicator will listen to everything everyone has to say and then make a decision.

There is no content in the hearing notice that suggests the hearing was only to clarify positions.
I have also considered the general information provided on the Tenancy Services website (https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/tribunal/attending-the- tribunal-hearing/) and cannot see anything on that information source, which suggests that the hearing was not to be the final hearing of the matter, in fact it indicates that a decision will be issued on the day of the hearing most likely. I note the above page includes the following: Attending the Tribunal hearing Attending a hearing can be daunting. Tribunal hearings are less formal than a normal court hearing, but you still need to know the rules and procedures.
Tell the truth The Tribunal will ask you to make a promise at the beginning of the hearing. This promise confirms that you’ll tell the truth.
You tell your story, and so will the other person Both landlord and tenant will tell their story. If you’re the applicant, you will explain your side first. Present the facts briefly and clearly. You may find it useful to have everything written down and summarised beforehand. The adjudicator (who’s like a judge) may ask questions.
Any witnesses can speak If you have witnesses, they can be called to give evidence. If they can’t come to the hearing, talk to us about other options. Affidavits, unsworn statements or letters from witnesses might be allowed as evidence instead. These may not be as effective as the witness being present at the hearing.
The adjudicator makes a decision The adjudicator will listen to you, the other person, and any witnesses. They’ll then analyse all the evidence presented. They will make their decision based on how the Residential Tenancies Act applies to the situation.
You receive an order The adjudicator will issue an order to settle the dispute. You and the other person will both receive a copy. You both have to obey the order. In most cases, you’ll receive the order on the day of the hearing. If the decision is more complicated, the adjudicator will write up the details of the order and post it out later.
I also note that when Adjudicator Yi adjourned the original hearing, he issued an order dated 1 June 2023, the adjudicator expressly referred to adjourning the “hearing”.
When I step back and consider the information available, I am entirely satisfied that Mr Walker has had a fair opportunity to present his case to the Tribunal. I do not accept there is sufficient evidence to support that Mr Walker has been misled as to the nature, or process that would apply in the hearing.

CONCLUSION

I find there are no grounds to order a rehearing. Mr Walker has not established a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice, actual or potential. The rehearing application is dismissed.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal has received an application for a rehearing, filed by the tenant. The Tribunal must determine whether a rehearing will be granted.

BACKGROUND

The tenant filed an application with the Tribunal seeking $80,000 in compensation from the landlord.
A hearing was scheduled on 1 June 2023. That hearing was adjourned because the landlord needed further time to prepare for the hearing.
The hearing was rescheduled to 24 August 2023 in the North Short District Courthouse.
Also on 24 August 2023 the Tribunal issued a decision. The Tribunal ordered the landlord to pay compensation to the tenant for a water leak, and exemplary damages for a retaliatory notice, the total to be paid was $3,320.44. However the Tribunal dismissed the tenants claims around the Healthy Homes Standards, failure to maintain and an order prohibiting re-renting the premises.
On 25 August 2023 the tenant applied for a rehearing.
I directed that a telephone hearing be scheduled to consider the tenant’s rehearing request. At the hearing today, both the tenant and landlord attended, and the hearing was translated into Mandarin for the landlord.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

Section 105 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 relates to rehearing’s. Subsection 1 confirms that: The Tribunal shall in all proceedings have the power to order a rehearing of the whole or any part of the proceedings on the ground that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur.
The applicant need not establish an actual miscarriage of justice or substantial wrong, only that it may have occurred. However, in the District Court Judgment of 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. [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.
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 Jemma Trust v Rutherford (DC North Shore, CIV-2009-044-2056, 11 December 1999), the District Court quoted an extract from the Court of Appeal outlining the relevant considerations: The principles upon which further evidence is admitted are designed to balance the interests of the person seeking to adduce such evidence on the one hand with the interests of the opposite party is on the other. They are also designed to reflect the public interest in ensuring, so far as is possible, that parties put up their best case at trial. Any other approach would be very wasteful of public resources. The conventional requirements are that the further evidence must be fresh, it must be credible and it must be cogent. Evidence is not regarded as fresh if it could with reasonable diligence have been produced at the trial....While the absence of freshness is not an absolute disqualification, the criteria for admission in such circumstances must be very strict. In our view, when the evidence is not fresh it should not be admitted unless the circumstances are exceptional and the grounds compelling.
As noted by Judge Christiansen in the District Court appeal of Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC 1993: In this Court’s view the Tribunal’s reasons for refusing a rehearing are correct. Rehearings are about challenges to processes and procedures and are not about what the adjudicator found or the decisions the adjudicator made.

PARTIES CASES

Mr Walker advised that a rehearing should be granted for these reasons: a. The written material was not referred to in the decision. Mr Walker would like an opportunity to represent this material again, because he does not consider it was looked at by the adjudicator. b. The process was not as described by Tenancy Services or on the Tenancy website. Mr Walker states that was told a lawyer should not be used because it was a Tribunal not a court hearing. The Tenancy Services phone line referred him to the Tenancy Services website. Mr Walker was not sure what date that advice was given to him.
In response the landlord states that she had considered the order, and she agrees with it, and accepts it.

ANALYSIS

The Tribunal issued a decision in August 2023, the tenant applies for a rehearing from that, and I must now determine whether a rehearing will be granted.
The tenants application for a hearing is presented on two broad grounds, which I will consider in turn. Written material not considered.
Mr Walker considers that the written material he filed with the Tribunal was not referred to in the decision and therefore not considered. Mr Walker would like an opportunity to represent this material again, because he does not consider it was looked at.
It is the case that Mr Walker has filed a wide range of evidence comprising photographs, emails, and other documentation setting out his case. Mr Walker considers that this material was not considered by the Tribunal, which is not correct. Just because the material was not recorded in the decision, does not mean it was not considered.
Except in the simplest of cases, it is normally seen that a decision maker will not record all of the documentary (or other) evidence filed. I note for example the District Court decision of Repia v Walsh Trust (DC Waitakere CIV 2011- 090-56), in which the Judge observed: In writing a decision which will necessarily involve an explanation of the outcome, an adjudicator or Judge seeks usefully and fairly to select from the whole of what has been presented that which, in his or her judgement, will serve to explain the reasons for the conclusions reached. That, indeed, is part of the very process of adjudication.
Certainly the focus of the decision is around what the parties said at the hearing. The reason for that, is that normally what the parties say in a hearing are the critical things for their case. An adjudicator will normally refer back to the documentary material when considering the oral submissions. While hearings in the senior courts focus largely on written submissions, that is not the case with Tribunals such as the Tenancy Tribunal. Parties are not often legally represented, and we have no expectation that written submissions be filed in advance. In fact I note that the High Court has confirmed that evidence does not need to be filed in advance of a tenancy hearing, all that is needed is for a party to have an idea of the substance of the claims. The High Court in Lwee & Yap v Tenancy Tribunal & Turner HC Christchurch CIV-2013-409- 000583, 27 June 2013 confirmed: Section 96 confirms that it is for the Tribunal to regulate its procedure generally. It seems to me that in light of the Act practical simplicity, knowledge of the substance of the opponents’ case and a speedy hearing and resolution of the dispute are the touchstones which must be met by an adjudicator in order to ensure a fair hearing.
Furthermore, there is a natural justice expectation for the opposing side know the claim against them, and have an opportunity to respond to it. Obviously when matters are raised orally at the hearing, then the opposing side knows that they should respond. In particularly complex cases such as this, when there is dense documentary material on file, if the Tribunal were to make orders in relation to particular matters raised in writing, but not raised orally, then the opposing side might rightfully claim that their natural justice expectations have been breached.
In this case I make the observation that the order from 24 August 2023 includes a number of long quotations, such as from emails, which were found in the Tribunal’s file, supporting that the file has been considered.
It is also relevant to note that the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the Tribunal act expeditiously when considering disputes. In that regard the long title to the RTA includes intention on the part of the legislature to “establish a tribunal to determine expeditiously disputes arising between such landlords and tenants, “
That expectation is confirmed in section 85 of the RTA sets out the manner in which the Tenancy Tribunal is to exercise its jurisdiction, and that includes that: (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2) The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.
I note that approach required of the Tribunal from section 85 was considered by the District Court in Nixon v Geal-Otter (DC North Shore TT 216/94, 6 December 1995), in which the Judge commented: The long title to the Act includes as part of the philosophy of the Act, expeditious determination of disputes. The Tribunal and the District Court must adopt an approach which protects that philosophy. Section 85 elaborates on the philosophy, requiring jurisdiction to be applied in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes, and injuncts that disputes should be determined in accordance with general principles of law and substantial merits and justice but not so as to be bound to give effect to strict legal forms or technicality. There must be an approach that reflects a broad intuitive sense of propriety in the circumstances of each case and recognises the overall impression and sense of fairness and equity. The broadness of this approach imports a recognition of earthy commonsense to resolutions which could be marginalised if the Tribunal and Courts slavishly applied technically correct legal niceties to allow claims such as for example in this case $20 for lawn mowing. Such an approach would open a door for unacceptable cluttering of a resolution process intended to be expeditious, particularly where disputes are over matters of minutia.
I am satisfied that Mr Walker had a fair opportunity to present his case, and I am not persuaded that any substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice (or potential for that) arises in this case from the Tribunal’s consideration of the documentation on file. Tenant not expecting a hearing
Mr Walker stated that the process he experience at the hearing was not as described by Tenancy Services or on the Tenancy website. Mr Walker states that was told a lawyer should not be used because it was a Tribunal not a court hearing. Mr Walker states that the Tenancy Services phone line operator referred him to the Tenancy Services website. Mr Walker was not sure what date that call was.
I note that I have reviewed the notes taken by Tenancy Services, but I cannot find any entry where Mr Walker phoned Tenancy Services for advice.
However, if Tenancy Services did provide advice, I am not persuaded that Mr Walker has been misled as to the process.
In his application for rehearing, Mr Walker states: I was told the first meeting would be a face-to-face to clarify both parties positions and attempt to reach an agreement. After receiving the order from the Tribunal, I’m now aware it was the final hearing for the court to make the given order. I did not understand that when the adjudicator stated a ‘ruling’ would be sent out, meant a court order would be issued.
It is not the process of the Tenancy Tribunal, and to my knowledge nor has it ever been, that the Tribunal would convene a meeting, or initial hearing face- to-face, in order to clarify both parties positions. The Tribunal simply does not follow that process, and I would be very surprised if that advice was given to a party to a Tenancy Tribunal hearing. Case conferences may be ordered in complex cases, but they are generally by telephone. I had questioned whether Mr Walker may have been mistakenly thinking that this was a mediation with Tenancy Services, but very few mediations occur face-to-face, they are a very different process to a hearing.
The hearing on 24 August 2023 was notified to the parties by way of a hearing notice dated 18 July 2023. In my view, that notice squarely informs the parties that the proceeding is a hearing in which the dispute would be determined. The notice says:

What happens at the Tenancy Tribunal?

There is no content in the hearing notice that suggests the hearing was only to clarify positions.
I have also considered the general information provided on the Tenancy Services website (https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/tribunal/attending-the- tribunal-hearing/) and cannot see anything on that information source, which suggests that the hearing was not to be the final hearing of the matter, in fact it indicates that a decision will be issued on the day of the hearing most likely. I note the above page includes the following: Attending the Tribunal hearing Attending a hearing can be daunting. Tribunal hearings are less formal than a normal court hearing, but you still need to know the rules and procedures.
Tell the truth The Tribunal will ask you to make a promise at the beginning of the hearing. This promise confirms that you’ll tell the truth.
You tell your story, and so will the other person Both landlord and tenant will tell their story. If you’re the applicant, you will explain your side first. Present the facts briefly and clearly. You may find it useful to have everything written down and summarised beforehand. The adjudicator (who’s like a judge) may ask questions.
Any witnesses can speak If you have witnesses, they can be called to give evidence. If they can’t come to the hearing, talk to us about other options. Affidavits, unsworn statements or letters from witnesses might be allowed as evidence instead. These may not be as effective as the witness being present at the hearing.
The adjudicator makes a decision The adjudicator will listen to you, the other person, and any witnesses. They’ll then analyse all the evidence presented. They will make their decision based on how the Residential Tenancies Act applies to the situation.
You receive an order The adjudicator will issue an order to settle the dispute. You and the other person will both receive a copy. You both have to obey the order. In most cases, you’ll receive the order on the day of the hearing. If the decision is more complicated, the adjudicator will write up the details of the order and post it out later.
I also note that when Adjudicator Yi adjourned the original hearing, he issued an order dated 1 June 2023, the adjudicator expressly referred to adjourning the “hearing”.
When I step back and consider the information available, I am entirely satisfied that Mr Walker has had a fair opportunity to present his case to the Tribunal. I do not accept there is sufficient evidence to support that Mr Walker has been misled as to the nature, or process that would apply in the hearing.

CONCLUSION

I find there are no grounds to order a rehearing. Mr Walker has not established a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice, actual or potential. The rehearing application is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4563249 — Leaks at 29 Palliser Lane, Browns Bay, Auckland 0630

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4563249 — Leaks at 29 Palliser Lane, Browns Bay, Auckland 0630

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

PARTIES CASES

ANALYSIS

What happens at the Tenancy Tribunal?

CONCLUSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

PARTIES CASES

ANALYSIS

What happens at the Tenancy Tribunal?

CONCLUSION

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions