What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4642609 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4642609?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4642609?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4642609?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9745636-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4642609 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4642609?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4642609?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4642609?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9745636-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

7 Parker Street, Hornby, Christchurch 8042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4642609 — Rent arrears

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by telephone. All parties attended.

On 8 November 2023 the Tribunal made an order awarding rent arrears to the landlords, compensation to both sides and dismissing other claims.

On 14 November the tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that Mr Chaudhari gave false evidence to the Tribunal, the tenant had new evidence on which he wants to rely and that the Tribunal applied a lower standard of proof to the landlords’ claims than it did to the tenant’s claims.

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. Discussion and Decision

For the following reasons the tenant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

The only new evidence that the tenant referred to is evidence that he bought a new mobile telephone after the incident on 30 July when he claims that Mr Chaudhari seized and retained his wife’s mobile telephone.

I don’t accept that the evidence could not reasonably have been provided to the Tribunal at the hearing on 7 November. I also don’t accept that the evidence would have made any difference to the outcome. It does not tend to prove that Mr Chaudhari took and retained Mrs Chen’s mobile telephone. I have given my reasons for deciding that issue against the tenant and there is no need to repeat them here.

The allegation that Mr Chaudhari gave false evidence does not add anything to the tenant’s claim that I should have preferred his evidence to Mr Chaudhari’s evidence. Again, I gave reasons for my finding on credibility. Simply asserting that Mr Chaudhari’s evidence was false, amounts to nothing more than the tenant saying he thinks my decision was wrong.

I reject the suggestion that I applied a lower standard of proof to the landlords’ claims than to the tenant’s claims. Assessing evidence involves weighing the evidence and assessing different indicators of credibility and reliability. One of the key factors was my finding as to the parties’ credibility. That was against the tenant, and he disagrees with it. That is not a ground for a rehearing.

The tenant has provided nothing that could possibly constitute a ground for a rehearing. If he believes my decision was wrong, he has his appeal rights for challenging the decision and getting it corrected if the District Court agrees with him.

For these reasons the tenant’s application is dismissed.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.
For the avoidance of any doubt, the Tribunal’s order made on 8 November 2023 may now be enforced.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by telephone. All parties attended.
On 8 November 2023 the Tribunal made an order awarding rent arrears to the landlords, compensation to both sides and dismissing other claims.
On 14 November the tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that Mr Chaudhari gave false evidence to the Tribunal, the tenant had new evidence on which he wants to rely and that the Tribunal applied a lower standard of proof to the landlords’ claims than it did to the tenant’s claims.
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. Discussion and Decision
For the following reasons the tenant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
The only new evidence that the tenant referred to is evidence that he bought a new mobile telephone after the incident on 30 July when he claims that Mr Chaudhari seized and retained his wife’s mobile telephone.
I don’t accept that the evidence could not reasonably have been provided to the Tribunal at the hearing on 7 November. I also don’t accept that the evidence would have made any difference to the outcome. It does not tend to prove that Mr Chaudhari took and retained Mrs Chen’s mobile telephone. I have given my reasons for deciding that issue against the tenant and there is no need to repeat them here.
The allegation that Mr Chaudhari gave false evidence does not add anything to the tenant’s claim that I should have preferred his evidence to Mr Chaudhari’s evidence. Again, I gave reasons for my finding on credibility. Simply asserting that Mr Chaudhari’s evidence was false, amounts to nothing more than the tenant saying he thinks my decision was wrong.
I reject the suggestion that I applied a lower standard of proof to the landlords’ claims than to the tenant’s claims. Assessing evidence involves weighing the evidence and assessing different indicators of credibility and reliability. One of the key factors was my finding as to the parties’ credibility. That was against the tenant, and he disagrees with it. That is not a ground for a rehearing.
The tenant has provided nothing that could possibly constitute a ground for a rehearing. If he believes my decision was wrong, he has his appeal rights for challenging the decision and getting it corrected if the District Court agrees with him.
For these reasons the tenant’s application is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4642609 — Rent arrears at 7 Parker Street, Hornby, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4642609 — Rent arrears at 7 Parker Street, Hornby, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions