What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4703729 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s name and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 4703729?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4703729?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4703729?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11854377-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4703729 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s name and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 4703729?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4703729?

The primary dispute was State of repair. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4703729?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11854377-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4703729 — State of repair

Order

The tenant’s name and identifying details must not be published.
The tenant’s application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing in person.
Mikayla Zhang attend the hearing for the landlord.
The tenant applies for a rehearing.
On 4 March 2025, the Tribunal made an order that the landlord must pay the tenant $2,459.12 for failing to lodge the bond, failing to maintain the premises, failing to insulate the premises, and for the filing fee.
On about 12 March 2025, the tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that: [R]elevant evidence was not available and therefore was not considered by the adjudicator.
The confirmation email from the bond centre that the previous [tenant’s bond was not lodged].
I have photos and email with Jonny Lu and his Dad that they did not fix the windows for two years. The window handles fall off before my rent date start. The fixed dates is 26/06/22. Legal principles
Section 105(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 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 applicant need not establish an actual miscarriage of justice or substantial wrong, only that it may have occurred. However, in Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, Judge Tuohy held that the statutory language set a high standard, and that: [18] ... 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. [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 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.
The availability of new evidence may not justify a rehearing if that evidence was available and could have been obtained for the original hearing, even if it is better evidence than that given at the original hearing. In Mason v May [1995] NZTT 1328/95, the Tribunal said that, before a rehearing will be granted on the grounds of new evidence, “an applicant has to show that reasonable diligence was used to produce all relevant evidence at the hearing, and there must be an explanation as to why the new evidence only came to light after the hearing”. 1 1 See Sastry v Omundsen, and others [2022] NZTT 4370560, 4345477. The tenant’s new evidence
The tenant’s proposed new evidence is an email from the Bond Centre and photographs and messages between the tenant and Mr Lu, the landlord’s agent. Bond evidence
The tenant relies on the Bond Centre email to prove that the landlord has previously failed to lodge a tenant’s bond with the Bond Centre in 2016. On that basis she would submit that the Tribunal should order a higher amount for exemplary damages than the $333.33 it did.
However, if the tenant had wanted to prove the landlord had previously failed to lodge, she could have obtained the evidence she now submits and submitted it at the earlier hearing.
Nor does the evidence does not establish the landlord did not lodge the bond in 2016. The Bond Centre’s email indicates it was looking for current bonds and is equivocal: “This does not necessarily mean we do not have a bond lodged for you”.
The tenant’s friend will purportedly say in evidence that she received the bond from the landlord at the end of the tenancy. This evidence is hearsay in its current form and therefore of limited value. Again, even if the friend were available to give such evidence in person, it was evidence that was reasonably available but was not called at the first hearing. Photographs and messages evidence
The tenant’s new evidence of photographs and messages included an email in which she complains about the windows, including that “the handles fall off”. The photographs purport to show windows missing handles over a two-year timeframe.
The tenant says she found the photographs saved in a Google and the messages on an old phone after the hearing.
This is evidence that was available to the tenant if she had exercised reasonable diligence to obtain all relevant evidence prior to the original hearing. The evidence was already in her possession, she simply did not locate it until after the hearing when she had opportunity to consider the deficiencies in her case.
The evidence was available to the tenant prior to the substantive hearing. It is not new evidence. The tenant’s inability to locate the evidence earlier cannot be a ground for a rehearing. Conclusion
I am not satisfied that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur in respect to the Tribunal’s order. Therefore, the Tribunal does not have the power to order a rehearing.
The application for a rehearing is dismissed. Non-publication
Non-publication of the tenant’s name and identifying details is ordered for this order to preserve the non-publication order that the Tribunal made in its original decision. Addendum
The application for rehearing having been dealt with, the Tribunal’s stay of its original order lapses.
The landlord must now immediately pay the tenant the sum the Tribunal ordered.

Order

The tenant’s name and identifying details must not be published.
The tenant’s application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

The tenant attended the hearing in person.
Mikayla Zhang attend the hearing for the landlord.
The tenant applies for a rehearing.
On 4 March 2025, the Tribunal made an order that the landlord must pay the tenant $2,459.12 for failing to lodge the bond, failing to maintain the premises, failing to insulate the premises, and for the filing fee.
On about 12 March 2025, the tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that: [R]elevant evidence was not available and therefore was not considered by the adjudicator.
The confirmation email from the bond centre that the previous [tenant’s bond was not lodged].
I have photos and email with Jonny Lu and his Dad that they did not fix the windows for two years. The window handles fall off before my rent date start. The fixed dates is 26/06/22. Legal principles
Section 105(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 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 applicant need not establish an actual miscarriage of justice or substantial wrong, only that it may have occurred. However, in Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, Judge Tuohy held that the statutory language set a high standard, and that: [18] ... 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. [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 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.
The availability of new evidence may not justify a rehearing if that evidence was available and could have been obtained for the original hearing, even if it is better evidence than that given at the original hearing. In Mason v May [1995] NZTT 1328/95, the Tribunal said that, before a rehearing will be granted on the grounds of new evidence, “an applicant has to show that reasonable diligence was used to produce all relevant evidence at the hearing, and there must be an explanation as to why the new evidence only came to light after the hearing”. 1 1 See Sastry v Omundsen, and others [2022] NZTT 4370560, 4345477. The tenant’s new evidence
The tenant’s proposed new evidence is an email from the Bond Centre and photographs and messages between the tenant and Mr Lu, the landlord’s agent. Bond evidence
The tenant relies on the Bond Centre email to prove that the landlord has previously failed to lodge a tenant’s bond with the Bond Centre in 2016. On that basis she would submit that the Tribunal should order a higher amount for exemplary damages than the $333.33 it did.
However, if the tenant had wanted to prove the landlord had previously failed to lodge, she could have obtained the evidence she now submits and submitted it at the earlier hearing.
Nor does the evidence does not establish the landlord did not lodge the bond in 2016. The Bond Centre’s email indicates it was looking for current bonds and is equivocal: “This does not necessarily mean we do not have a bond lodged for you”.
The tenant’s friend will purportedly say in evidence that she received the bond from the landlord at the end of the tenancy. This evidence is hearsay in its current form and therefore of limited value. Again, even if the friend were available to give such evidence in person, it was evidence that was reasonably available but was not called at the first hearing. Photographs and messages evidence
The tenant’s new evidence of photographs and messages included an email in which she complains about the windows, including that “the handles fall off”. The photographs purport to show windows missing handles over a two-year timeframe.
The tenant says she found the photographs saved in a Google and the messages on an old phone after the hearing.
This is evidence that was available to the tenant if she had exercised reasonable diligence to obtain all relevant evidence prior to the original hearing. The evidence was already in her possession, she simply did not locate it until after the hearing when she had opportunity to consider the deficiencies in her case.
The evidence was available to the tenant prior to the substantive hearing. It is not new evidence. The tenant’s inability to locate the evidence earlier cannot be a ground for a rehearing. Conclusion
I am not satisfied that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur in respect to the Tribunal’s order. Therefore, the Tribunal does not have the power to order a rehearing.
The application for a rehearing is dismissed. Non-publication
Non-publication of the tenant’s name and identifying details is ordered for this order to preserve the non-publication order that the Tribunal made in its original decision. Addendum
The application for rehearing having been dealt with, the Tribunal’s stay of its original order lapses.
The landlord must now immediately pay the tenant the sum the Tribunal ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4703729 — State of repair

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4703729 — State of repair

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions