What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4774721 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4774721?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4774721?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4774721?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10316466-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4774721 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4774721?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4774721?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4774721?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10316466-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4774721 — Exemplary damages

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended a rehearing hearing. The landlord was represented by Ms Youngman.
On 20 March 2024 the Tribunal made orders awarding the tenant compensation and exemplary damages.
On 26 March 2024, the property owner, Dean McKenzie, applied for a rehearing on the grounds that a substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred. Results Realty Limited are recorded as the landlord in the tenancy agreement (without any reference to an owner or agency agreement). Further, Mr McKenzie, resides overseas. See s16A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Ms Jones of Results Realty Ltd, confirmed to the Tribunal that Mr McKenzie had made the rehearing application on its behalf. Neither Ms Jones nor Mr McKenzie attended the first hearing and neither attended the rehearing hearing today.
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. A rehearing may also be granted where there is new evidence that was not reasonably available to that party 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?

I have considered the contents of the rehearing application in full. I have also considered the evidence passed up by Ms Youngman at the re-hearing hearing today.
For the following reasons Results Realty and Mr McKenzie have failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
The rehearing application states that the grounds for rehearing are that the adjudicator improperly accepted or rejected evidence. Mr McKenzie’s submission sets out a narrative that is inconsistent with the documentary and oral evidence given at the first hearing. To the extent that Mr McKenzie refers to documentation not presented at the last hearing (eg plans), that evidence was (on Mr McKenzie’s submission) reasonably available.
Mr McKenzie states that the Tribunal improperly admitted a 90-day notice into evidence without having a copy of the document. Ms Youngman presented the document to me today. It is consistent with and confirms the oral evidence of both Ms Youngman and the tenant at the first hearing. That is, the written document supports the findings made on 20 March 2024.
The written submission states that it is “very strange” that the Order does not refer to the evidence of Ms Youngman. There is reference to Ms Youngman and the landlord’s evidence, where appropriate throughout the Order.
Much of the rehearing application amounts to allegations that the adjudicator made incorrect findings of fact. That is not a valid ground for rehearing. Making findings based on the evidence given at the hearing, is different to an adjudicator improperly admitting or rejecting (refusing to hear) evidence.
Similarly, it appears that evidence now referred to was available to the landlord at the time of the first hearing, but not presented to the Tribunal.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended a rehearing hearing. The landlord was represented by Ms Youngman.
On 20 March 2024 the Tribunal made orders awarding the tenant compensation and exemplary damages.
On 26 March 2024, the property owner, Dean McKenzie, applied for a rehearing on the grounds that a substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred. Results Realty Limited are recorded as the landlord in the tenancy agreement (without any reference to an owner or agency agreement). Further, Mr McKenzie, resides overseas. See s16A Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
Ms Jones of Results Realty Ltd, confirmed to the Tribunal that Mr McKenzie had made the rehearing application on its behalf. Neither Ms Jones nor Mr McKenzie attended the first hearing and neither attended the rehearing hearing today.
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. A rehearing may also be granted where there is new evidence that was not reasonably available to that party 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?

I have considered the contents of the rehearing application in full. I have also considered the evidence passed up by Ms Youngman at the re-hearing hearing today.
For the following reasons Results Realty and Mr McKenzie have failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
The rehearing application states that the grounds for rehearing are that the adjudicator improperly accepted or rejected evidence. Mr McKenzie’s submission sets out a narrative that is inconsistent with the documentary and oral evidence given at the first hearing. To the extent that Mr McKenzie refers to documentation not presented at the last hearing (eg plans), that evidence was (on Mr McKenzie’s submission) reasonably available.
Mr McKenzie states that the Tribunal improperly admitted a 90-day notice into evidence without having a copy of the document. Ms Youngman presented the document to me today. It is consistent with and confirms the oral evidence of both Ms Youngman and the tenant at the first hearing. That is, the written document supports the findings made on 20 March 2024.
The written submission states that it is “very strange” that the Order does not refer to the evidence of Ms Youngman. There is reference to Ms Youngman and the landlord’s evidence, where appropriate throughout the Order.
Much of the rehearing application amounts to allegations that the adjudicator made incorrect findings of fact. That is not a valid ground for rehearing. Making findings based on the evidence given at the hearing, is different to an adjudicator improperly admitting or rejecting (refusing to hear) evidence.
Similarly, it appears that evidence now referred to was available to the landlord at the time of the first hearing, but not presented to the Tribunal.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4774721 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4774721 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions