What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4732209 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ names and identifying details should remain suppressed.

How much money was awarded in case 4732209?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4732209?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4732209?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10567795-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4732209 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ names and identifying details should remain suppressed.

How much money was awarded in case 4732209?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4732209?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4732209?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10567795-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4732209 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The parties’ names and identifying details should remain suppressed.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The stay of proceedings is lifted.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. The landlord was represented by Ms T who is the wife of the landlord.
On 5 April 2024 the Tribunal made an order determining claims by each party against the other. A key finding was that the parties were parties to a residential tenancy agreement which was subject to the Residential Tenancies Act (“RTA”), giving the Tribunal jurisdiction to determine the claims.
On 16 April 2024, Ms T applied for a rehearing on the grounds that the Order was incorrect in determining that the parties’ agreement was subject to the RTA.
That application was dismissed on the papers as Ms T was not a party to the tenancy agreement or the Order, so she lack standing to apply for a rehearing.
The landlord then brough this rehearing application which was set down for consideration to give the parties the opportunity to be heard.
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?

Ms T says that the April Order wrongly found that that parties’ agreement was subject to the provisions of the RTA. She also says that there is additional evidence that was not able to be presented at the hearing in the form of: a. the Certificate of Title to the property and rates information, showing that the property comprises one title; and b. Opinions for a lawyer and property manager that the situation is not one covered by the RTA.
She says too that initially, the tenant was only claiming return of the bond so fair opportunity was not given to prepare to address these issues.
The tenant is entitled to challenge the Tribunal’s findings as wrong but the appropriate process for that is by way of appeal.
Evidence showing that the property comprises one title, is as I had understood it to be when making the findings that are challenged. Had that evidence been presented at the hearing it would not have impacted on the decision.
With respect, the opinions of other persons, especially those who have not considered all the evidence, do not constitute evidence that might have materially affected the outcome.
Ms T has made a number of points which she says show that the parties’ relationship should be categorised as a house sharing arrangement outside the provisions of the RTA. While it is difficult for her to know, because she chose not to take part in the hearing, those matters were raised and considered at the hearing.
The tenant’s application does include a statement that what is sought is return of the bond. It is however clear from evidence filed before the hearing, that the tenant was challenging failure to lodge the bond and the way the tenancy was terminated. My view is that in respect of those issues, they were addressed at length during the hearing, both parties had full opportunity to present their evidence and points of view.
I therefore consider that a challenge to the findings made should be by way of appeal rather than by requiring that the matter be reheard.
Ms T also seeks a rehearing in respect of the findings made on the landlord’s claims. There can be no suggestion that the landlord did not have full opportunity to present evidence in support of the claims as it was his application.
The submissions made by Ms T are, in essence, a restatement of the position and submissions put by the landlord at the hearing. As noted, the purpose of a rehearing is not to give a party a second opportunity to present their case.
I do not consider there to be a significant risk that “a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred” in the process through which the Tribunal’s findings were arrived at.
For those reasons the application for re-hearing is declined

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. The landlord was represented by Ms T who is the wife of the landlord.

On 5 April 2024 the Tribunal made an order determining claims by each party against the other. A key finding was that the parties were parties to a residential tenancy agreement which was subject to the Residential Tenancies Act (“RTA”), giving the Tribunal jurisdiction to determine the claims.

On 16 April 2024, Ms T applied for a rehearing on the grounds that the Order was incorrect in determining that the parties’ agreement was subject to the RTA.

That application was dismissed on the papers as Ms T was not a party to the tenancy agreement or the Order, so she lack standing to apply for a rehearing.

The landlord then brough this rehearing application which was set down for consideration to give the parties the opportunity to be heard.

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?

Ms T says that the April Order wrongly found that that parties’ agreement was subject to the provisions of the RTA. She also says that there is additional evidence that was not able to be presented at the hearing in the form of: a. the Certificate of Title to the property and rates information, showing that the property comprises one title; and b. Opinions for a lawyer and property manager that the situation is not one covered by the RTA.

She says too that initially, the tenant was only claiming return of the bond so fair opportunity was not given to prepare to address these issues.

The tenant is entitled to challenge the Tribunal’s findings as wrong but the appropriate process for that is by way of appeal.

Evidence showing that the property comprises one title, is as I had understood it to be when making the findings that are challenged. Had that evidence been presented at the hearing it would not have impacted on the decision.

With respect, the opinions of other persons, especially those who have not considered all the evidence, do not constitute evidence that might have materially affected the outcome.

Ms T has made a number of points which she says show that the parties’ relationship should be categorised as a house sharing arrangement outside the provisions of the RTA. While it is difficult for her to know, because she chose not to take part in the hearing, those matters were raised and considered at the hearing.

The tenant’s application does include a statement that what is sought is return of the bond. It is however clear from evidence filed before the hearing, that the tenant was challenging failure to lodge the bond and the way the tenancy was terminated. My view is that in respect of those issues, they were addressed at length during the hearing, both parties had full opportunity to present their evidence and points of view.

I therefore consider that a challenge to the findings made should be by way of appeal rather than by requiring that the matter be reheard.

Ms T also seeks a rehearing in respect of the findings made on the landlord’s claims. There can be no suggestion that the landlord did not have full opportunity to present evidence in support of the claims as it was his application.

The submissions made by Ms T are, in essence, a restatement of the position and submissions put by the landlord at the hearing. As noted, the purpose of a rehearing is not to give a party a second opportunity to present their case.

I do not consider there to be a significant risk that “a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred” in the process through which the Tribunal’s findings were arrived at.

For those reasons the application for re-hearing is declined

Tenancy Tribunal case 4732209 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4732209 — 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