What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4654010?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4654010?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4654010?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4654010?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10627517-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4654010?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4654010?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4654010?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4654010?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10627517-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

127 Pembroke Street, Hamilton Lake, Hamilton 3204 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4654010 — Rent arrears

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 15 May 2024 the Tribunal made an order against Ms Martinez for rent arrears, and against the landlord Krishn Duggal for exemplary damages and compensation.
On 15 May 2024 Anjuli Sumar applied for a rehearing on the grounds that the correct representative was not contacted on the day of the hearing and relevant evidence was therefore not able to be provided and considered by the adjudicator. A sheet of paper setting out background information was attached.
The hearing, a cross-application of the above NZTT numbers was set down for 17 November 2023 with Aleyna Martinez as the tenant, and Krishn Duggal as the landlord. At that hearing Mr Duggal sought to call a witness after the conclusion of the hearing, and his application was declined.
Following that hearing a minute was issued on 20 November 2023 allowing a further hearing for the landlord to call a witness. This hearing was scheduled for 15 May 2024.
Between 20 November 2023 and when the 15 May 2024 date was scheduled, the applicant landlord changed from Krishn Duggal to Anjuli Sumar. Krishn Duggal was still the respondent for Ms Martinez’s application.
On 15 May 2024 the hearing was by teleconference. Mr Duggal was telephoned and he advised that he was no longer managing the property in question. Mr Duggal advised that Ms Sumar, who lives overseas, was now the landlord. It was explained to Mr Duggal that the Tribunal didn’t have the capability to make international calls and Mr Duggal advised the Tribunal that it was well within his capability to represent the landlord in calling evidence from his witness.
Mr Duggal sounded lucid and articulate, and the Tribunal had no concerns about him representing the landlord.
The witness was then called twice at the scheduled time, on the number provided to the Tribunal and did not answer either call.
In today’s hearing Ms Sumar confirmed that her application for a rehearing relates only to the hearing held on 15 May 2024.
Ms Sumar claims that a miscarriage of justice will occur if the landlord’s witness is not presented to give evidence.
Ms Sumar claims that she was only given confirmation from the Tribunal on 13 May 2024 that she would be the representative for the 15 May 2024 hearing, and this did not give her sufficient time to prepare properly and make appropriate arrangements. She stated that she was available and ready to take the call from the Tribunal on 15 May 2024.
Ms Sumar also stated that because Mr Duggal represented the landlord on 15 May 2024, the witness may not have been aware of the purpose of the hearing, and the importance of being present.
The tenant, Ms Martinez stated that throughout the tenancy the landlord was notoriously difficult to get hold of, and it was usual for the landlord to not turn up or be late at hearings.
Ms Martinez also stated that this matter is getting close to a year old now and that she has suffered emotionally from the landlord unlawfully taking her belongings. She stated that she spoke with Ms Deobaktar, the landlord’s witness on 23 April 2024, and Ms Deobaktar’s parting words were, “See you at the Tribunal.” Ms Martinez claims this indicates Ms Deobaktar was aware of the upcoming hearing. Ms Martinez stated she is seeking closure.
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?

Ms Sumar claims that she was confirmed as the representative for the landlord on 13 May 2024 and she was ready to take the call on 15 May 2024. However, the evidence that was to be given was not from Ms Sumar; it was from Ms Deobaktar. Ms Deobaktar was called twice on 15 May 2024 and did not answer either call.
I am not persuaded that Mr Duggal rather than Ms Sumar representing the landlord affected Ms Deobaktar’s attendance at the hearing. As I stated in my Order of 15 May 2024, it is for a party to have their witnesses ready at the scheduled hearing time. Neither Ms Sumar nor Mr Duggal had Ms Deobaktar ready to give evidence at the scheduled time on 15 May 2024. Mr Duggal’s application on 15 May 2024 for an adjournment to allow Ms Deobaktar to attend was declined. This application for a rehearing is for the same purpose but dressed in a different frock.
If Ms Sumar had concerns regarding preparation time, she could have made an application for an adjournment prior to the 15 May 2024. She did not.
No substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice in relation to Ms Deobaktar’s attendance on 15 May 2024 has been proved. For this reason, Anjuli Sumar has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 15 May 2024 the Tribunal made an order against Ms Martinez for rent arrears, and against the landlord Krishn Duggal for exemplary damages and compensation.
On 15 May 2024 Anjuli Sumar applied for a rehearing on the grounds that the correct representative was not contacted on the day of the hearing and relevant evidence was therefore not able to be provided and considered by the adjudicator. A sheet of paper setting out background information was attached.
The hearing, a cross-application of the above NZTT numbers was set down for 17 November 2023 with Aleyna Martinez as the tenant, and Krishn Duggal as the landlord. At that hearing Mr Duggal sought to call a witness after the conclusion of the hearing, and his application was declined.
Following that hearing a minute was issued on 20 November 2023 allowing a further hearing for the landlord to call a witness. This hearing was scheduled for 15 May 2024.
Between 20 November 2023 and when the 15 May 2024 date was scheduled, the applicant landlord changed from Krishn Duggal to Anjuli Sumar. Krishn Duggal was still the respondent for Ms Martinez’s application.
On 15 May 2024 the hearing was by teleconference. Mr Duggal was telephoned and he advised that he was no longer managing the property in question. Mr Duggal advised that Ms Sumar, who lives overseas, was now the landlord. It was explained to Mr Duggal that the Tribunal didn’t have the capability to make international calls and Mr Duggal advised the Tribunal that it was well within his capability to represent the landlord in calling evidence from his witness.
Mr Duggal sounded lucid and articulate, and the Tribunal had no concerns about him representing the landlord.
The witness was then called twice at the scheduled time, on the number provided to the Tribunal and did not answer either call.
In today’s hearing Ms Sumar confirmed that her application for a rehearing relates only to the hearing held on 15 May 2024.
Ms Sumar claims that a miscarriage of justice will occur if the landlord’s witness is not presented to give evidence.
Ms Sumar claims that she was only given confirmation from the Tribunal on 13 May 2024 that she would be the representative for the 15 May 2024 hearing, and this did not give her sufficient time to prepare properly and make appropriate arrangements. She stated that she was available and ready to take the call from the Tribunal on 15 May 2024.
Ms Sumar also stated that because Mr Duggal represented the landlord on 15 May 2024, the witness may not have been aware of the purpose of the hearing, and the importance of being present.
The tenant, Ms Martinez stated that throughout the tenancy the landlord was notoriously difficult to get hold of, and it was usual for the landlord to not turn up or be late at hearings.
Ms Martinez also stated that this matter is getting close to a year old now and that she has suffered emotionally from the landlord unlawfully taking her belongings. She stated that she spoke with Ms Deobaktar, the landlord’s witness on 23 April 2024, and Ms Deobaktar’s parting words were, “See you at the Tribunal.” Ms Martinez claims this indicates Ms Deobaktar was aware of the upcoming hearing. Ms Martinez stated she is seeking closure.
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?

Ms Sumar claims that she was confirmed as the representative for the landlord on 13 May 2024 and she was ready to take the call on 15 May 2024. However, the evidence that was to be given was not from Ms Sumar; it was from Ms Deobaktar. Ms Deobaktar was called twice on 15 May 2024 and did not answer either call.
I am not persuaded that Mr Duggal rather than Ms Sumar representing the landlord affected Ms Deobaktar’s attendance at the hearing. As I stated in my Order of 15 May 2024, it is for a party to have their witnesses ready at the scheduled hearing time. Neither Ms Sumar nor Mr Duggal had Ms Deobaktar ready to give evidence at the scheduled time on 15 May 2024. Mr Duggal’s application on 15 May 2024 for an adjournment to allow Ms Deobaktar to attend was declined. This application for a rehearing is for the same purpose but dressed in a different frock.
If Ms Sumar had concerns regarding preparation time, she could have made an application for an adjournment prior to the 15 May 2024. She did not.
No substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice in relation to Ms Deobaktar’s attendance on 15 May 2024 has been proved. For this reason, Anjuli Sumar has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4654010 — Rent arrears at 127 Pembroke Street, Hamilton Lake, Hamilton 3204

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4654010 — Rent arrears at 127 Pembroke Street, Hamilton Lake, Hamilton 3204

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions