What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4673291 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4673291?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4673291?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4673291?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10563860-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4673291 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4673291?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4673291?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4673291?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10563860-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4673291 — Tenancy dispute

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

On 3 May 2024 I made an order in respect of the landlord and tenant applications. Both applications were partially successful. The net result was that the landlords were to pay the tenant $1,599.89.
On 10 May 2024 the landlords filed an application for a re-hearing.
An application hearing took place by phone on 21 June 2024. Both parties participated in the hearing.
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.
The landlords provided a detailed written submission in support of their application, which sets out the grounds for the application. Ms Milham and Mr Rinkin elaborated upon those grounds at the application hearing.
The application does not raise any issues relating to procedural unfairness. There were two Tenancy Tribunal hearings in respect of the applications and both parties participated in both hearings. The first hearing took place on 11 October 2023 and, due to an adjournment, the second hearing did not take place until 3 April 2024. After the October hearing I issued an adjournment order which set out clearly the issues in dispute. Both parties had ample opportunity to prepare and present all relevant evidence and submissions.
The application does not introduce any evidence that was not reasonably available at the time of the original hearings.
The landlords disagree with the findings of the Tribunal, they consider that their evidence was not given adequate weight, and they want the decision to be “reviewed”.
This is not grounds for granting a re-hearing.
The landlords also state that they discovered damage to the premises after re- taking possession. They provided a quote for repairs.
This is a new claim, not part of the two current applications. If the landlords wish to pursue this, they must file a new application.
The grounds for a re-hearing are not established. The application is dismissed.
Name suppression was granted to the tenant in the original order and applies to this order also.

Reasons

On 3 May 2024 I made an order in respect of the landlord and tenant applications. Both applications were partially successful. The net result was that the landlords were to pay the tenant $1,599.89.

On 10 May 2024 the landlords filed an application for a re-hearing.

An application hearing took place by phone on 21 June 2024. Both parties participated in the hearing.

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.

The landlords provided a detailed written submission in support of their application, which sets out the grounds for the application. Ms Milham and Mr Rinkin elaborated upon those grounds at the application hearing.

The application does not raise any issues relating to procedural unfairness. There were two Tenancy Tribunal hearings in respect of the applications and both parties participated in both hearings. The first hearing took place on 11 October 2023 and, due to an adjournment, the second hearing did not take place until 3 April 2024. After the October hearing I issued an adjournment order which set out clearly the issues in dispute. Both parties had ample opportunity to prepare and present all relevant evidence and submissions.

The application does not introduce any evidence that was not reasonably available at the time of the original hearings.

The landlords disagree with the findings of the Tribunal, they consider that their evidence was not given adequate weight, and they want the decision to be “reviewed”.

This is not grounds for granting a re-hearing.

The landlords also state that they discovered damage to the premises after re- taking possession. They provided a quote for repairs.

This is a new claim, not part of the two current applications. If the landlords wish to pursue this, they must file a new application.

The grounds for a re-hearing are not established. The application is dismissed.

Name suppression was granted to the tenant in the original order and applies to this order also.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4673291 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4673291 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions