What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4583889 about?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4583889?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4583889?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4583889?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9297133-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4583889 about?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4583889?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4583889?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4583889?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9297133-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

639 Ferguson Street, Terrace End, Palmerston North 4410 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4583889 — Tenancy dispute

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The stay of proceedings granted in the Tribunal’s Order of 19 July 2023 is lifted.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
The tenant did not attend the hearing. Grounds for rehearing
The tenant’s grounds for a rehearing as stated in her application are: a. The tenant could not attend the hearing because she was at work. b. She called in advance of the hearing in order to have it rescheduled. c. She did not receive the order via email “or have any knowledge of the outcome”. d. She claimed to have “messages regarding the invoices which do not seem true with how I left the property”. e. She “Would like the chance to have my say”. The law
To establish grounds to approve a rehearing, the tenant need not establish an actual miscarriage of justice or substantial wrong, only that it may have occurred. 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 e.g. 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.”
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.”
Of the grounds claimed by the tenant for a rehearing, only the claim that she could not attend could be a ground for granting a rehearing.
There is no evidence on the Tribunal’s file or in the Court records that the tenant made any attempt to have the hearing deferred or adjourned.
The tenant has not attended the rehearing hearing to support those allegations with proof.
The tenant’s application for a rehearing is dismissed and the stay of proceedings is lifted.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.

The tenant did not attend the hearing. Grounds for rehearing

The tenant’s grounds for a rehearing as stated in her application are: a. The tenant could not attend the hearing because she was at work. b. She called in advance of the hearing in order to have it rescheduled. c. She did not receive the order via email “or have any knowledge of the outcome”. d. She claimed to have “messages regarding the invoices which do not seem true with how I left the property”. e. She “Would like the chance to have my say”. The law

To establish grounds to approve a rehearing, the tenant need not establish an actual miscarriage of justice or substantial wrong, only that it may have occurred. 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 e.g. 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.”

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.”

Of the grounds claimed by the tenant for a rehearing, only the claim that she could not attend could be a ground for granting a rehearing.

There is no evidence on the Tribunal’s file or in the Court records that the tenant made any attempt to have the hearing deferred or adjourned.

The tenant has not attended the rehearing hearing to support those allegations with proof.

The tenant’s application for a rehearing is dismissed and the stay of proceedings is lifted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4583889 — Tenancy dispute at 639 Ferguson Street, Terrace End, Palmerston North 4410

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4583889 — Tenancy dispute at 639 Ferguson Street, Terrace End, Palmerston North 4410

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions