What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4659990?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4659990?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4659990?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4659990?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10188789-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4659990?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4659990?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4659990?

The primary dispute was State of repair.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4659990?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10188789-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

3 Triangle Road, Massey, Auckland 0614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4659990 — State of repair

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Culham and Ms Byrne represented the tenant.
Mr Wang has applied for a rehearing of the Tribunal’s order dated 23 January 2024. The Tribunal made an order on both applications. The tenant does not seek a rehearing on its application and opposes the landlord’s application for rehearing. Legal considerations
The law as it relates to rehearings is set out in section 105(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) The Tribunal has the power to order a rehearing of the whole or any part of the proceedings on the ground that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur.
In Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, the Court considered the meaning of ‘substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice’. The Court said: [18]....These are strong words which set a high standard. They most obviously apply, as the adjudicator pointed out, to cases of procedural error eg 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 by a witness. The words 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. First, the strength of the language in s105 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 an 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 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 a notice of appeal against an original decision nugatory.
I have quoted from this decision at some length to assist Mr Wang to understand the nature of an application for rehearing.

Has the landlord established grounds for a rehearing?

In essence, Mr Wang is simply dissatisfied with my decision, especially with the finding that he failed to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (on the tenant’s application) and my finding that the tenant did not cause damage to the upstairs floor and ceiling below (on his application).
Mr Wang also disagrees with my decision that the tenancy should be terminated at the date he made his application, which included an application for termination of the tenancy (which he disputes).
Mr Wang takes issue with my finding that he applied to terminate the tenancy and my adoption of the date of his application as the end date of the tenancy. He says the application was a standard form and he did not intend to apply to terminate the tenancy. I do not accept that.
But even if I made an error (and I did not in the sense that I made a considered decision) that is still not a ground for a rehearing.
Mr Wang also wants to provide evidence he did not produce at the first hearing – emails between him and the tenant. Ms Culham confirmed, and I accept, that the email evidence was produced by her at the hearing.
Even if it had not been produced, the evidence is not new. Mr Wang confirmed that it existed at the time of the hearing (as indeed it must have given the dates of the emails which were throughout 2023). It is not new evidence that was unable to be produced at the hearing of the applications.
Mr Wang has not shown any procedural flaw in the hearing process. He attended the hearing; he was assisted by an interpreter; and the hearing lasted for some time. He was fully and fairly heard.
Mr Wang has failed to prove that there was a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice. There are no grounds on which the Tribunal can order a rehearing.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Culham and Ms Byrne represented the tenant.
Mr Wang has applied for a rehearing of the Tribunal’s order dated 23 January 2024. The Tribunal made an order on both applications. The tenant does not seek a rehearing on its application and opposes the landlord’s application for rehearing. Legal considerations
The law as it relates to rehearings is set out in section 105(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) The Tribunal has the power to order a rehearing of the whole or any part of the proceedings on the ground that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur.
In Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, the Court considered the meaning of ‘substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice’. The Court said: [18]....These are strong words which set a high standard. They most obviously apply, as the adjudicator pointed out, to cases of procedural error eg 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 by a witness. The words 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. First, the strength of the language in s105 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 an 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 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 a notice of appeal against an original decision nugatory.
I have quoted from this decision at some length to assist Mr Wang to understand the nature of an application for rehearing.

Has the landlord established grounds for a rehearing?

In essence, Mr Wang is simply dissatisfied with my decision, especially with the finding that he failed to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair (on the tenant’s application) and my finding that the tenant did not cause damage to the upstairs floor and ceiling below (on his application).
Mr Wang also disagrees with my decision that the tenancy should be terminated at the date he made his application, which included an application for termination of the tenancy (which he disputes).
Mr Wang takes issue with my finding that he applied to terminate the tenancy and my adoption of the date of his application as the end date of the tenancy. He says the application was a standard form and he did not intend to apply to terminate the tenancy. I do not accept that.
But even if I made an error (and I did not in the sense that I made a considered decision) that is still not a ground for a rehearing.
Mr Wang also wants to provide evidence he did not produce at the first hearing – emails between him and the tenant. Ms Culham confirmed, and I accept, that the email evidence was produced by her at the hearing.
Even if it had not been produced, the evidence is not new. Mr Wang confirmed that it existed at the time of the hearing (as indeed it must have given the dates of the emails which were throughout 2023). It is not new evidence that was unable to be produced at the hearing of the applications.
Mr Wang has not shown any procedural flaw in the hearing process. He attended the hearing; he was assisted by an interpreter; and the hearing lasted for some time. He was fully and fairly heard.
Mr Wang has failed to prove that there was a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice. There are no grounds on which the Tribunal can order a rehearing.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4659990 — State of repair at 3 Triangle Road, Massey, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4659990 — State of repair at 3 Triangle Road, Massey, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord established grounds for a rehearing?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the landlord established grounds for a rehearing?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions