What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4773791 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4773791?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4773791?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4773791?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10067493-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4773791 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4773791?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4773791?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4773791?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10067493-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Flat 15, 38 Division Street, Riccarton, Christchurch 8041 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4773791 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The date of termination in the initial order (4773791) is varied and possession is now granted to Otautahi Community Housing Trust at 11.59pm on Sunday 17 March 2024.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Olds and Ms Wyatt attended on behalf of the landlord.
On 2 February 2024 the Tribunal made an order for termination of the tenancy for a breach not capable of remedy being assault of a neighbour of the premises of which the tenancy address forms a part.
Mr Lagaaia told the Tribunal that he had a witness who was unable to attend but did not have any evidence to support this claim, so the hearing went ahead as all other witnesses were present.
On 14 February 2024, [The tenant/s] applied for a rehearing (out of time) on the grounds that he had a witness who was prepared to give evidence on his behalf but who was unavailable at the hearing date due to a hospital appointment. He provided details of the evidence that the specific witness would be able to give.
The rehearing consideration hearing was granted on the basis that Mr Lagaaia’s witness would bring evidence of her hospital appointment and provide the evidence that she would have provided at the original hearing.
Section 105(1) of the 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”.
The witness’s attendance and evidence would have enabled the Tribunal to determine whether a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice had occurred in not adjourning the initial hearing to enable that witness to give the evidence Mr Lagaaia said she wanted to give.
That person did not attend the rehearing consideration hearing and provided no evidence to support Mr Lagaaia despite being asked to do so by Mr Lagaaia.
The landlord’s representatives confirmed that there was a neighbour who had been in hospital on the date of the original hearing but said that she had no desire to give evidence on Mr Lagaaia’s behalf and the landlord’s oral evidence and the proposed witness’s absence supported that contention.
Mr Lagaaia had another person with him but there was no suggestion that this person had ever intended to be present at the initial hearing or that his evidence (if any) should or would have been available to the Tribunal at that time.
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.
[The tenant/s] has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
The original order was stayed pending the outcome of this hearing. The original termination date has now passed, and the new termination date is as specified in the order above.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Olds and Ms Wyatt attended on behalf of the landlord.

On 2 February 2024 the Tribunal made an order for termination of the tenancy for a breach not capable of remedy being assault of a neighbour of the premises of which the tenancy address forms a part.

Mr Lagaaia told the Tribunal that he had a witness who was unable to attend but did not have any evidence to support this claim, so the hearing went ahead as all other witnesses were present.

On 14 February 2024, [The tenant/s] applied for a rehearing (out of time) on the grounds that he had a witness who was prepared to give evidence on his behalf but who was unavailable at the hearing date due to a hospital appointment. He provided details of the evidence that the specific witness would be able to give.

The rehearing consideration hearing was granted on the basis that Mr Lagaaia’s witness would bring evidence of her hospital appointment and provide the evidence that she would have provided at the original hearing.

Section 105(1) of the 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”.

The witness’s attendance and evidence would have enabled the Tribunal to determine whether a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice had occurred in not adjourning the initial hearing to enable that witness to give the evidence Mr Lagaaia said she wanted to give.

That person did not attend the rehearing consideration hearing and provided no evidence to support Mr Lagaaia despite being asked to do so by Mr Lagaaia.

The landlord’s representatives confirmed that there was a neighbour who had been in hospital on the date of the original hearing but said that she had no desire to give evidence on Mr Lagaaia’s behalf and the landlord’s oral evidence and the proposed witness’s absence supported that contention.

Mr Lagaaia had another person with him but there was no suggestion that this person had ever intended to be present at the initial hearing or that his evidence (if any) should or would have been available to the Tribunal at that time.

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.

[The tenant/s] has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

The original order was stayed pending the outcome of this hearing. The original termination date has now passed, and the new termination date is as specified in the order above.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4773791 — Tenancy dispute at Flat 15, 38 Division Street, Riccarton, Christchurch 8041

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4773791 — Tenancy dispute at Flat 15, 38 Division Street, Riccarton, Christchurch 8041

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions