What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4591115?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4591115?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4591115?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Cleanliness, Rubbish Removal, Carpet Cleaning.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4591115?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10529917-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4591115?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4591115?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4591115?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Cleanliness, Rubbish Removal, Carpet Cleaning.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4591115?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10529917-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Mairehau, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 4591115 — Smoke alarms

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

On 3 July 2024 the Tribunal made an order that the landlord pay to the tenants the sum of $1,365.00, being the balance of the bond held by the landlord after deducting the sum of $615.00.

On 25 July 2024, the landlord, who was represented by [Mr S], applied for a rehearing. I held a hearing on 25 September 2024 to determine whether I should grant the application.

The dispute has been ongoing for some time. The tenancy ended on 26 March 2023 and the landlord filed its application against Ms Hanrahan and Ms Mountford on 9 June 2023. The application first came before the Tribunal on 23 August 2023. Neither Ms Hanrahan nor Ms Mountford attended that hearing. They applied for and were granted a rehearing. The application came back before the Tribunal on 6 October 2023 and a decision was issued on 19 October 2023. The landlord subsequently applied for and was granted a rehearing and the matter came before me on 31 January 2024 when I held a directions hearing. Ms Dion was added as a respondent after that hearing and the application was heard by me on 21 May 2024.

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?

The grounds upon which the landlord applies for a rehearing are set out in [Mr S’s] application. Five of the seven grounds listed are essentially that he is unhappy with my decision, and he believes that I have made wrong findings of fact and misapplied relevant law. However, as mentioned above, simply being wrong in my findings of fact or law, or a party wanting another chance to make its case is not grounds for rehearing.

The other two grounds listed in [Mr S’s] application are that: he has new evidence (emails, text messages, and photographs) that he believes might change the outcome; and that another tenant (Ms Munro) should have been added to the application as a respondent.

While I accept that the landlord has additional evidence that he may wish to present if a rehearing is granted, as mentioned above, to be successful in a rehearing application that new evidence must not have been reasonably available at the previous hearing. The landlord said that he did not provide the additional evidence at the previous hearing either because he did not think that it was necessary (he believed the evidence he had provided was sufficient), or because he had recently found the evidence (emails) after having a more careful look through his emails.

I find that the new evidence that the landlord now wishes to present was reasonably available at the time of the previous hearing but [Mr S] either chose not to provide it or chose not to use all diligence to find it before the hearing.

The final ground is that the decision made by me at the directions hearing to not add Ms Munro as a respondent was wrong. I note that this was also a ground for the rehearing application by the landlord in August 2023. In his ‘rehearing’ decision Adjudicator Manhire notes (at para 25) that the landlord ought to have addressed this much earlier in a separate application against the former tenant (Ms Munro). I also advised [Mr S] at the directions hearing that because Ms Munro was not at any time a co-tenant of Ms Hanrahan or Ms Mountford and there was effectively a separate tenancy with Ms Munro, the landlord would need to file a separate application against her. This is in my view procedurally correct and therefore no miscarriage of justice has occurred or may have occurred by the decision to not add Ms Munro to this application.

I therefore find that the landlord has not established that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred or may have occurred. The landlord’s application for rehearing is therefore dismissed and the interim stay of enforcement of the 3 July 2024 order is lifted.

In its order dated 23 August 2023, the Tribunal ordered suppression of the landlord’s names and identifying details. The landlord’s names and identifying details are suppressed under this order so as not to undermine the suppression order made on 23 August.

Reasons

On 3 July 2024 the Tribunal made an order that the landlord pay to the tenants the sum of $1,365.00, being the balance of the bond held by the landlord after deducting the sum of $615.00.

On 25 July 2024, the landlord, who was represented by [Mr S], applied for a rehearing. I held a hearing on 25 September 2024 to determine whether I should grant the application.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Tenancy Tribunal case 4591115 — Smoke alarms in Mairehau, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4591115 — Smoke alarms in Mairehau, Christchurch

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions