What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4625410?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply around the publication of this decision.

How much money was awarded in case 4625410?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4625410?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4625410?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9517554-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4625410?

The tribunal order states: No suppression orders apply around the publication of this decision.

How much money was awarded in case 4625410?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4625410?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4625410?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9517554-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

279 Balcairn Amberley Road, Balcairn, RD 1, Amberley Tenancy Tribunal Case 4625410 — Tenancy dispute

Order

No suppression orders apply around the publication of this decision.
The application(s) for rehearing are dismissed.

Reasons

On 21 June 2023 I made a decision of applications 4522850 and 4523993.
The tenant applied for a rehearing out of time.
The rehearing application was set for hearing today at 2.00pm. The parties were notified of the hearing and text reminders were sent to them. Neither party attended the hearing.
The tenant lodged a duplicate of her rehearing application on 6 July 2023. I held a directions conference with the parties on 6 September 2023. I struck out that application for the reasons detailed in my decision that day.
The tenant lodged an application for rehearing against that decision. The rehearing hearing was set for a telephone hearing tomorrow at 11.30am.
It was my intention to explain to the parties today that the hearing scheduled for tomorrow would not go ahead, because of the duplication issue. There was no possible reason for allowing a rehearing of the decision to strike out the rehearing application.
While the sequence of events is confusing, the issue is not. The sole issue is whether the Tribunal should grant the tenant’s application to rehear her application, decided on 21 June 2023.
Because the tenant did not attend the scheduled hearing today, that is sufficient for the Tribunal to dismiss her application for rehearing.
However, for completeness, I will explain why her application for rehearing could not succeed.
The tenant has raised two principal issues in support of her rehearing application.
First, she says that the Tribunal did not consider and decide her claim that the landlord defamed her.
The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider claims for the tort of defamation. Defamation is a civil action.
Second, she says that the Tribunal did not consider and decide her claim that the premises were unlawful because they did not have proper council consents. The Tribunal did consider that issue – see paragraph 27 of the substantive decision.
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 the tenant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
Her application for rehearing of the substantive decision does not show any substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice. The tenant is simply unhappy with the outcome.
Both parties attended the hearing, gave evidence, and made submissions. I took all the evidence into account when making the decision. That every piece of evidence is not specifically referenced does not establish a defect of process.
Her duplication application for rehearing is against the strike out decision I made. While that was scheduled for a telephone hearing tomorrow, had the tenant attended the hearing today I would have explained why that (duplicate) application for rehearing could not proceed. There can only be one application for rehearing live at any time. I have dealt with the application for rehearing first filed.
As I explained in my decision dated 6 September 2023, a party cannot make a substantive application again once the issues have been heard and determined. Her remedy (which she suggested she had initiated) was to apply for an appeal.
For these reasons I dismiss both of the tenant’s applications for rehearing. The telephone hearing scheduled for tomorrow will not now proceed.

Order

No suppression orders apply around the publication of this decision.
The application(s) for rehearing are dismissed.

Reasons

On 21 June 2023 I made a decision of applications 4522850 and 4523993.
The tenant applied for a rehearing out of time.
The rehearing application was set for hearing today at 2.00pm. The parties were notified of the hearing and text reminders were sent to them. Neither party attended the hearing.
The tenant lodged a duplicate of her rehearing application on 6 July 2023. I held a directions conference with the parties on 6 September 2023. I struck out that application for the reasons detailed in my decision that day.
The tenant lodged an application for rehearing against that decision. The rehearing hearing was set for a telephone hearing tomorrow at 11.30am.
It was my intention to explain to the parties today that the hearing scheduled for tomorrow would not go ahead, because of the duplication issue. There was no possible reason for allowing a rehearing of the decision to strike out the rehearing application.
While the sequence of events is confusing, the issue is not. The sole issue is whether the Tribunal should grant the tenant’s application to rehear her application, decided on 21 June 2023.
Because the tenant did not attend the scheduled hearing today, that is sufficient for the Tribunal to dismiss her application for rehearing.
However, for completeness, I will explain why her application for rehearing could not succeed.
The tenant has raised two principal issues in support of her rehearing application.
First, she says that the Tribunal did not consider and decide her claim that the landlord defamed her.
The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider claims for the tort of defamation. Defamation is a civil action.
Second, she says that the Tribunal did not consider and decide her claim that the premises were unlawful because they did not have proper council consents. The Tribunal did consider that issue – see paragraph 27 of the substantive decision.
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 the tenant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
Her application for rehearing of the substantive decision does not show any substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice. The tenant is simply unhappy with the outcome.
Both parties attended the hearing, gave evidence, and made submissions. I took all the evidence into account when making the decision. That every piece of evidence is not specifically referenced does not establish a defect of process.
Her duplication application for rehearing is against the strike out decision I made. While that was scheduled for a telephone hearing tomorrow, had the tenant attended the hearing today I would have explained why that (duplicate) application for rehearing could not proceed. There can only be one application for rehearing live at any time. I have dealt with the application for rehearing first filed.
As I explained in my decision dated 6 September 2023, a party cannot make a substantive application again once the issues have been heard and determined. Her remedy (which she suggested she had initiated) was to apply for an appeal.
For these reasons I dismiss both of the tenant’s applications for rehearing. The telephone hearing scheduled for tomorrow will not now proceed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4625410 — Tenancy dispute at 279 Balcairn Amberley Road, Balcairn, RD 1, Amberley

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4625410 — Tenancy dispute at 279 Balcairn Amberley Road, Balcairn, RD 1, Amberley

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions