What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4755389 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4755389?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4755389?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4755389?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10072549-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4755389 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4755389?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4755389?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4755389?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10072549-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4755389 — Exemplary damages

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone. Ms Frew represented Kitt Property Management.

On 2 February 2024 the Tribunal made an order dismissing the tenant’s application.

On 13 February the tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that she was unwell at the time of the hearing, and she was not able to present her case adequately.

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.

Should here be a rehearing?

After hearing from the tenant, I accept that she may well have had more to say in support of her application had she been well at the previous hearing. I also accept that between the landlord and their agents there has been a failure to accurately record the tenant’s rent payments. Indeed, I accepted that in my previous order. The tenant’s main contention is that the failure on the landlord’s side to properly record the rent payments should result in award of exemplary damages or compensation to her for the considerable stress that she suffered due to that failure.

I decided that there should not be an award for the reasons set out in my decision. I do not think that my reasons were wrong and even if I did, that would not be a reason to grant a rehearing. The underlying facts are not in dispute, and I was aware of them when I made my original decision. If the tenant had been well, and able to present her application more fully and vigorously, it would not have altered the facts.

For these reasons I find that there are no grounds for a rehearing. The tenant indicated that she would appeal this decision and that is her right. Suppression

I have suppressed the tenant’s name and identifying details for the same reasons that I did for the previous order.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone. Ms Frew represented Kitt Property Management.

On 2 February 2024 the Tribunal made an order dismissing the tenant’s application.

On 13 February the tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that she was unwell at the time of the hearing, and she was not able to present her case adequately.

Should here be a rehearing?

For these reasons I find that there are no grounds for a rehearing. The tenant indicated that she would appeal this decision and that is her right. Suppression

I have suppressed the tenant’s name and identifying details for the same reasons that I did for the previous order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4755389 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4755389 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should here be a rehearing?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should here be a rehearing?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions