What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4698709 about?

The tribunal order states: The application by the tenant for rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4698709?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4698709?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4698709?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10426705-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4698709 about?

The tribunal order states: The application by the tenant for rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4698709?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4698709?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4698709?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10426705-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

1245 Teviot Road, Teviot, RD 2, Roxburgh 9572, Onslow Tenancy Tribunal Case 4698709 — Exemplary damages

Order

The application by the tenant for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, by telephone.
On 14/3/2024 the Tribunal made an order for the tenant to pay the landlord $952.47 for gas cylinder and electricity costs, dismissed the landlord’s application for further compensation of $151.80 and dismissed the tenant’s claim for compensation and exemplary damages.
On 18/3/2024, the tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that all her evidence had not been considered and she did not get a fair hearing. The tenant believed she “got a raw deal” throughout the process which included a case conference and two hearings all by different adjudicators.
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”.
In the District Court judgement of Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, His Honour Judge Touhy confirmed that the words “substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice”, set a high standard, stating: “They most obviously apply ... 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 a witness. The words may also encompass the discovery of new and important evidence not previously available. ... 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 for this. First the strength of the language in s 105 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 obvious injustice, not merely an erroneous decision. 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 by way of an application for rehearing, and then again to the District Court against the grant or refusal of the application for rehearing. Not only does this offend the general hierarchical nature of the appeal system, it would also make the time limit for filing notice of appeal against an original decision nugatory.”
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 the tenant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing: a. Significant evidence was presented at the lengthy hearing by both parties. b. The fact that the tenant misconstrued the issues set out in the case conference minute of 20/11/2023 as breaches by the landlord is not grounds for a rehearing. c. I am not persuaded that the photographs or other evidence relied on by the tenant for the hearing which resulted in the decision dated 12/12/2023 could have significantly affected the decision dated 14/3/2024. d. The fact that the tenant disagrees with the decision is not grounds for a rehearing. e. The Tribunal cannot consider the personal circumstances or beliefs of either party when making a decision. f. The landlord did not want a rehearing.
I consider no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred and the application for rehearing fails.
Suppression is granted to the landlord because the landlord’s name in the Order dated 14/3/2024 was also suppressed.

Order

The application by the tenant for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, by telephone.
On 14/3/2024 the Tribunal made an order for the tenant to pay the landlord $952.47 for gas cylinder and electricity costs, dismissed the landlord’s application for further compensation of $151.80 and dismissed the tenant’s claim for compensation and exemplary damages.
On 18/3/2024, the tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that all her evidence had not been considered and she did not get a fair hearing. The tenant believed she “got a raw deal” throughout the process which included a case conference and two hearings all by different adjudicators.
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”.
In the District Court judgement of Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, His Honour Judge Touhy confirmed that the words “substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice”, set a high standard, stating: “They most obviously apply ... 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 a witness. The words may also encompass the discovery of new and important evidence not previously available. ... 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 for this. First the strength of the language in s 105 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 obvious injustice, not merely an erroneous decision. 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 by way of an application for rehearing, and then again to the District Court against the grant or refusal of the application for rehearing. Not only does this offend the general hierarchical nature of the appeal system, it would also make the time limit for filing notice of appeal against an original decision nugatory.”
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 the tenant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing: a. Significant evidence was presented at the lengthy hearing by both parties. b. The fact that the tenant misconstrued the issues set out in the case conference minute of 20/11/2023 as breaches by the landlord is not grounds for a rehearing. c. I am not persuaded that the photographs or other evidence relied on by the tenant for the hearing which resulted in the decision dated 12/12/2023 could have significantly affected the decision dated 14/3/2024. d. The fact that the tenant disagrees with the decision is not grounds for a rehearing. e. The Tribunal cannot consider the personal circumstances or beliefs of either party when making a decision. f. The landlord did not want a rehearing.
I consider no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred and the application for rehearing fails.
Suppression is granted to the landlord because the landlord’s name in the Order dated 14/3/2024 was also suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4698709 — Exemplary damages at 1245 Teviot Road, Teviot, RD 2, Roxburgh 9572, Onslow

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4698709 — Exemplary damages at 1245 Teviot Road, Teviot, RD 2, Roxburgh 9572, Onslow

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