What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4733942 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4733942?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4733942?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4733942?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10534098-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4733942 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4733942?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4733942?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4733942?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10534098-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

227A Panama Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1062 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4733942 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The stay made on 25 March 2024 is now lifted and the order dated 15 March 2024 may now be enforced.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Yun attended with the assistance of a Korean interpreter, Ms Shin. The tenant appeared by phone as she no longer resides in Auckland
On 15 March 2024 the Tribunal made an order for the landlord to pay $10,800.44 to the tenant immediately, made up as follows:
On 21 March 2024 the landlord applied for a rehearing.
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 Yun has explained that she had additional evidence that she wanted to the Tribunal to consider.
Ms Yun presented various communications between herself and the tenant during tenancy, some of which were relevant to the Tribunal order dated 15 March 2024 and some of which were not. Much of the evidence had in fact already been referred to at the original hearing.
With regard to any previous communications that had not already been referred to the original hearing, I asked Ms Yun why that evidence had not been filed and referred at the original hearing, as the evidence had clearly been available at the original hearing and so was not “new” evidence.
Ms Yun explained that she had been unwell and that she injured her wrist and so it had been difficult to file evidence. However I note that the tenant’s claim was filed on 13 November 2023, that the landlord was in fact granted an adjournment due to health issues, and the hearing was not held until 15 March 2024. The landlord had nearly four months to file evidence.
I do not consider that any of the evidence that consists of communications between the landlord and tenant during the tenancy are new evidence, and so they do not provide grounds for a rehearing.
The only other evidence filed by Ms Yun was: a. a tenancy agreement with new tenants dated 12 December 2023 for a tenancy starting on 10 January 2024; and b. correspondence from the same new tenants dated 15 February 2024 and 18 March 2024 regarding the condition of the property and confirming that they are happy with the tenancy.
In my view the only arguably “new” evidence might be the communication from the tenants on 19 March 2024 as this is dated after the hearing. However none of the evidence referred to in paragraph 12 above would have affected the outcome. Ms Yun had already confirmed in evidence at the first hearing that some tenants moved into the property immediately after this tenant moved out, that different tenants were now living there, and that renovations had not yet taken place (more than three months after the end of this tenancy).
While I accept that Ms Yun’s new tenants may well be happy with the tenancy, the issue in this proceeding was whether the property was properly maintained. The views of the new tenants are not relevant to the original tenant’s claim.
I record that most of Ms Yun’s submissions at the hearing today were focussed on challenging the correctness of the decision dated 15 March 2024 and her own potential claims against the tenant (such claims not yet having been filed despite Ms Yun’s previous indications that she intended to do so).
Ms Yun has not proved that she has grounds for a re-hearing and her application for re-hearing must be dismissed.
The stay granted on 25 March 2024 is now lifted so that the tenant may enforce the Tribunal’s decision of 15 March 2024.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Yun attended with the assistance of a Korean interpreter, Ms Shin. The tenant appeared by phone as she no longer resides in Auckland

On 15 March 2024 the Tribunal made an order for the landlord to pay $10,800.44 to the tenant immediately, made up as follows:

On 21 March 2024 the landlord applied for a rehearing.

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 Yun has explained that she had additional evidence that she wanted to the Tribunal to consider.

Ms Yun presented various communications between herself and the tenant during tenancy, some of which were relevant to the Tribunal order dated 15 March 2024 and some of which were not. Much of the evidence had in fact already been referred to at the original hearing.

With regard to any previous communications that had not already been referred to the original hearing, I asked Ms Yun why that evidence had not been filed and referred at the original hearing, as the evidence had clearly been available at the original hearing and so was not “new” evidence.

Ms Yun explained that she had been unwell and that she injured her wrist and so it had been difficult to file evidence. However I note that the tenant’s claim was filed on 13 November 2023, that the landlord was in fact granted an adjournment due to health issues, and the hearing was not held until 15 March 2024. The landlord had nearly four months to file evidence.

I do not consider that any of the evidence that consists of communications between the landlord and tenant during the tenancy are new evidence, and so they do not provide grounds for a rehearing.

The only other evidence filed by Ms Yun was: a. a tenancy agreement with new tenants dated 12 December 2023 for a tenancy starting on 10 January 2024; and b. correspondence from the same new tenants dated 15 February 2024 and 18 March 2024 regarding the condition of the property and confirming that they are happy with the tenancy.

In my view the only arguably “new” evidence might be the communication from the tenants on 19 March 2024 as this is dated after the hearing. However none of the evidence referred to in paragraph 12 above would have affected the outcome. Ms Yun had already confirmed in evidence at the first hearing that some tenants moved into the property immediately after this tenant moved out, that different tenants were now living there, and that renovations had not yet taken place (more than three months after the end of this tenancy).

While I accept that Ms Yun’s new tenants may well be happy with the tenancy, the issue in this proceeding was whether the property was properly maintained. The views of the new tenants are not relevant to the original tenant’s claim.

I record that most of Ms Yun’s submissions at the hearing today were focussed on challenging the correctness of the decision dated 15 March 2024 and her own potential claims against the tenant (such claims not yet having been filed despite Ms Yun’s previous indications that she intended to do so).

Ms Yun has not proved that she has grounds for a re-hearing and her application for re-hearing must be dismissed.

The stay granted on 25 March 2024 is now lifted so that the tenant may enforce the Tribunal’s decision of 15 March 2024.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4733942 — Tenancy dispute at 227A Panama Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1062

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4733942 — Tenancy dispute at 227A Panama Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1062

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