What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4706225 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4706225?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4706225?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4706225?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9797956-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4706225 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4706225?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4706225?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4706225?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9797956-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4706225 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.
On 27 November 2023 the Tribunal made an order for compensation to the landlord.
The landlord applied for a rehearing of that Order.
The parties reached agreement on the compensation aspects of the claim and there was a partial withdrawal of the rehearing application.
The issue that the landlord does want heard concerns the Tribunal’s finding in paragraph 3 of the Order that: “3. The landlord filed her application on 10 October 2023. Her application sought an Order for termination of the tenancy for breaches by the tenant. Those applications have been superseded by events with the tenancy having ended on 15 November 2023 and the tenant having vacated after a termination notice was issued by the landlord, on the basis that she is to occupy the premises herself.”
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?

The landlord’s position is that it was the delay in her application for termination for the tenant’s breaches being heard, that gave rise to the need for her to issue a notice of termination under s.51(1)(a). She says that she was entitled to have had that application considered and if it had been heard earlier, termination of the tenancy could have been ordered without her having to remain living in the premises for 90 days after termination in terms of section 51(1)(a), as she now considers herself bound to do.
The fact is that the landlord terminated the tenancy by notice. By the time of the hearing the tenancy had ended and there was no basis for a termination Order to be made. The Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to change that reality and deal with the matter as if the tenancy had not been ended and as if the notice of termination hadn't been given.
Also, these were matters raised by the landlord and discussed at the initial hearing.
I am not persuaded that there is a risk of a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice having occurred in terms of that finding and the application for rehearing must be declined.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.

On 27 November 2023 the Tribunal made an order for compensation to the landlord.

The landlord applied for a rehearing of that Order.

The parties reached agreement on the compensation aspects of the claim and there was a partial withdrawal of the rehearing application.

The issue that the landlord does want heard concerns the Tribunal’s finding in paragraph 3 of the Order that: “3. The landlord filed her application on 10 October 2023. Her application sought an Order for termination of the tenancy for breaches by the tenant. Those applications have been superseded by events with the tenancy having ended on 15 November 2023 and the tenant having vacated after a termination notice was issued by the landlord, on the basis that she is to occupy the premises herself.”

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?

The landlord’s position is that it was the delay in her application for termination for the tenant’s breaches being heard, that gave rise to the need for her to issue a notice of termination under s.51(1)(a). She says that she was entitled to have had that application considered and if it had been heard earlier, termination of the tenancy could have been ordered without her having to remain living in the premises for 90 days after termination in terms of section 51(1)(a), as she now considers herself bound to do.

The fact is that the landlord terminated the tenancy by notice. By the time of the hearing the tenancy had ended and there was no basis for a termination Order to be made. The Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to change that reality and deal with the matter as if the tenancy had not been ended and as if the notice of termination hadn't been given.

Also, these were matters raised by the landlord and discussed at the initial hearing.

I am not persuaded that there is a risk of a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice having occurred in terms of that finding and the application for rehearing must be declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4706225 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4706225 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions