How much money was awarded in case 4711789?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4711789?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4711789?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11050157-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 4711789?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4711789?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4711789?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11050157-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

325 Fenton Street, Glenholme, Rotorua 3010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4711789 — Exemplary damages

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4711789 about?

The tribunal order states: The application for rehearing is dismissed. The stay of execution is lifted with

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, the landlords in person, the tenant by telephone and with the assistance of a Mandarin interpreter.

On 24 September 2024 the Tribunal made an order for compensation and exemplary damages and refund of the bond and filing fee.

On 1 October 2024 the landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that the Tribunal was wrong to order it pay compensatory and exemplary damages and a refund of the bond without first considering the landlord’s cross application. The landlord also asserts that the tenant did not pay a bond, the money paid/deducted from her wages was for having pets and therefore did not need to be lodged with the bond centre.

The tenant objected to the rehearing, making the point that she did not receive all of the compensation she was requesting and also did not agree with aspects of the order. She also objected to the stay of execution remaining in force any longer and specifically not until the landlord’s application is heard. She said she not yet received the cross application.

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 applicant has failed to establish grounds for a rehearing.

The applicant’s submission that the Tribunal was wrong to make the findings it did, both jurisdictionally in the order issued on 8 November 2023 by Adjudicator Woodhouse and then substantively in the order on 24 September 2024 are clearly grounds for appeal and not rehearing.

In the order of 24 September 2024, it was again reiterated that until the landlord filed a cross application the issues it has raised cannot be determined.

Are there grounds to continue the stay of execution?

As the application for rehearing is dismissed the stay of execution must also be lifted. There are no grounds to continue it. The tenant objected to continuing it.

While the landlord said the cross application has now been filed (on 1 November 2024), it has not yet been processed. It will be some time before it is heard.

The Tribunal noted in the order on 24 September 2024 that consideration had been given to delaying or staying the execution of the order, as the landlord had requested. However, as the landlord had not then filed a claim, and has only done so 6 days ago, that is not a reasonable option.

The continuation of the stay of proceedings could only be directed if the rehearing application had been granted or the tenant agreed and neither option applies.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed. The stay of execution is lifted with effect that the order of 24 September 2024 is enforceable immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, the landlords in person, the tenant by telephone and with the assistance of a Mandarin interpreter.
On 24 September 2024 the Tribunal made an order for compensation and exemplary damages and refund of the bond and filing fee.
On 1 October 2024 the landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that the Tribunal was wrong to order it pay compensatory and exemplary damages and a refund of the bond without first considering the landlord’s cross application. The landlord also asserts that the tenant did not pay a bond, the money paid/deducted from her wages was for having pets and therefore did not need to be lodged with the bond centre.
The tenant objected to the rehearing, making the point that she did not receive all of the compensation she was requesting and also did not agree with aspects of the order. She also objected to the stay of execution remaining in force any longer and specifically not until the landlord’s application is heard. She said she not yet received the cross application.
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 applicant has failed to establish grounds for a rehearing.
The applicant’s submission that the Tribunal was wrong to make the findings it did, both jurisdictionally in the order issued on 8 November 2023 by Adjudicator Woodhouse and then substantively in the order on 24 September 2024 are clearly grounds for appeal and not rehearing.
In the order of 24 September 2024, it was again reiterated that until the landlord filed a cross application the issues it has raised cannot be determined.

Are there grounds to continue the stay of execution?

As the application for rehearing is dismissed the stay of execution must also be lifted. There are no grounds to continue it. The tenant objected to continuing it.
While the landlord said the cross application has now been filed (on 1 November 2024), it has not yet been processed. It will be some time before it is heard.
The Tribunal noted in the order on 24 September 2024 that consideration had been given to delaying or staying the execution of the order, as the landlord had requested. However, as the landlord had not then filed a claim, and has only done so 6 days ago, that is not a reasonable option.
The continuation of the stay of proceedings could only be directed if the rehearing application had been granted or the tenant agreed and neither option applies.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4711789 — Exemplary damages at 325 Fenton Street, Glenholme, Rotorua 3010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4711789 — Exemplary damages at 325 Fenton Street, Glenholme, Rotorua 3010

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Are there grounds to continue the stay of execution?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Are there grounds to continue the stay of execution?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions