What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4690996 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 4690996?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4690996?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4690996?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10110333-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4690996 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 4690996?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4690996?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4690996?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10110333-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4690996 — Exemplary damages

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

On 29 January 2024, the Tribunal made an order for Ms Wang to pay the Tenant exemplary damages and reimburse the filing fee.

On 5 February 2024, Ms Wang applied for a rehearing on the grounds that she had further evidence to support her argument there was a waterproofing issue. The Tenants agreed to end the fixed term tenancy on 23 July 2023 and they gave notice to Ms Wang. She then advertised on 6 September 2023 that the property was available for viewing on 19 September 2023. This gave time for the new tenants to give notice. Ms Wang signed the Tenancy Agreement with the Tenants but not the third flatmate. The Tenants had good salaries so there should not have been any issues with finding a new place. The parties agreed to terminate the fixed term tenancy with 90 days notice. The Tenants found a new place and moved out on 18 September 2023.

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 Ms Wang failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

Ms Wang was wanting to submit further evidence which she did not file at the hearing. This evidence was reasonably available at the time of the hearing but she did not present it at the time. Miss Wang submitted further arguments that the Tenants agreed to end the fixed term tenancy and the reasons why she advertised on 6 September 2023 that the property was available for viewing. She never intended to evict the Tenants so that she could raise the rent but it was just the timing of the termination process which made it appear so. She also submitted the salaries of the Tenants were good so there should be no reason why they suffered from this termination. This again is the Landlord seeking a second opportunity to argue their case. This is not the reason why a rehearing is granted. It has to be some kind of procedural error for example which makes it a miscarriage of justice. In this case, there was no error in procedure. The Landlord was given ample opportunity to prepare her evidence but failed to.

For these reasons, the rehearing request is dismissed.

Order

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

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 29 January 2024, the Tribunal made an order for Ms Wang to pay the Tenant exemplary damages and reimburse the filing fee.
On 5 February 2024, Ms Wang applied for a rehearing on the grounds that she had further evidence to support her argument there was a waterproofing issue. The Tenants agreed to end the fixed term tenancy on 23 July 2023 and they gave notice to Ms Wang. She then advertised on 6 September 2023 that the property was available for viewing on 19 September 2023. This gave time for the new tenants to give notice. Ms Wang signed the Tenancy Agreement with the Tenants but not the third flatmate. The Tenants had good salaries so there should not have been any issues with finding a new place. The parties agreed to terminate the fixed term tenancy with 90 days notice. The Tenants found a new place and moved out on 18 September 2023.
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 Ms Wang failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
Ms Wang was wanting to submit further evidence which she did not file at the hearing. This evidence was reasonably available at the time of the hearing but she did not present it at the time. Miss Wang submitted further arguments that the Tenants agreed to end the fixed term tenancy and the reasons why she advertised on 6 September 2023 that the property was available for viewing. She never intended to evict the Tenants so that she could raise the rent but it was just the timing of the termination process which made it appear so. She also submitted the salaries of the Tenants were good so there should be no reason why they suffered from this termination. This again is the Landlord seeking a second opportunity to argue their case. This is not the reason why a rehearing is granted. It has to be some kind of procedural error for example which makes it a miscarriage of justice. In this case, there was no error in procedure. The Landlord was given ample opportunity to prepare her evidence but failed to.
For these reasons, the rehearing request is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4690996 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4690996 — Exemplary damages

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