What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4774757?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4774757?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4774757?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4774757?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10570191-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4774757?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4774757?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4774757?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4774757?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10570191-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

93 Sylvan Avenue, Northcote, Auckland 0627 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4774757 — Harassment

Order

The landlords application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

On 4 April 2024 the Tribunal issued an order in relation to extensive applications from both the landlord and tenant. The landlord has applied for a rehearing. In order to consider if a rehearing should be ordered, the Tribunal convened a telephone hearing on 11 July 2024. In attendance were the landlords, and also the tenants represented by Mr George.

LANDLORDS CASE

The landlords seek a rehearing. The landlords raised various matters at the telephone hearing today: a. Issues around the pets that the tenants had and any losses they incurred. b. Issues around alleged harassment, and complaints made in relation to the power board, and being advised that there was no obligation on the landlords to replace the board. c. Complaints that the tenants made to the Police. d. Disputes around maintenance. e. Odours of the pets in the carpets at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord considers that the matters they now want to be reheard were raised at the original hearing but overlooked.
I note I have also considered the reasons set out in the written application for rehearing, which include: a. That the adjudicator improperly admitted evidence; and that b. New evidence is now available.

TENANTS CASE

The tenants were represented by Mr George at the telephone hearing. Mr George confirmed that the tenants were present with him on the call.
The tenants oppose the application for rehearing, and accept the Tribunal’s order.

ANALYSIS

The Tribunal has received an application for a rehearing, and therefore must decide whether a rehearing will be granted, and if so, on what terms.
Decisions issued by the Tribunal are binding on both parties, however the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) allows either party to apply for a rehearing. In particular section 105 of the RTA relates to rehearing’s. Subsection 1 confirms that: The Tribunal shall in all proceedings have the power to order a rehearing of the whole or any part of the proceedings on the ground that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur.
If a rehearing is granted, then the Tribunal would direct that the whole or part of the original hearing be held again.
The applicant need not establish an actual miscarriage of justice or substantial wrong, only that it may have occurred. However, in the District Court Judgment of Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, Judge Tuohy held that the statutory language set a high standard, and that: [18] ... They most obviously apply ... to cases of procedural error eg a hearing which takes place in the absence of a party who has not been given notice of it; the improper admission or rejection of evidence; misconduct by the adjudicator or by one of the parties or a witness. The words may also encompass the discovery of new and important evidence not previously available. [19] In my view, however, the words do not cover a complaint that the Tribunal was merely mistaken or wrong in its findings of fact or in its application of the law. There are two reasons for this. First the strength of the language in s 105 is such that something more than a mere wrong decision must be shown. The section does not speak of a decision being wrong, but of a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurring. This implies obvious injustice, not merely an erroneous decision. [20] Secondly, if a mere erroneous decision is enough, whether the error is factual or legal or both, it would enable parties to in effect appeal any decision twice: once to the very Tribunal which made it by way of an application for rehearing, and then again to the District Court against the grant or refusal of the application for rehearing. Not only does that offend the general hierarchical nature of the appeal system, it would also make the time limit for filing notice of appeal against an original decision nugatory.
As noted by Judge Christiansen in the District Court appeal of Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC 1993: In this Court’s view the Tribunal’s reasons for refusing a rehearing are correct. Rehearings are about challenges to processes and procedures and are not about what the adjudicator found or the decisions the adjudicator made.
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. In Jemma Trust v Rutherford (DC North Shore, CIV-2009-044-2056, 11 December 1999), the District Court quoted an extract from the Court of Appeal outlining the relevant considerations: The principles upon which further evidence is admitted are designed to balance the interests of the person seeking to adduce such evidence on the one hand with the interests of the opposite party is on the other. They are also designed to reflect the public interest in ensuring, so far as is possible, that parties put up their best case at trial. Any other approach would be very wasteful of public resources. The conventional requirements are that the further evidence must be fresh, it must be credible and it must be cogent. Evidence is not regarded as fresh if it could with reasonable diligence have been produced at the trial....While the absence of freshness is not an absolute disqualification, the criteria for admission in such circumstances must be very strict. In our view, when the evidence is not fresh it should not be admitted unless the circumstances are exceptional and the grounds compelling.
Having considered what the landlord raised at the telephone hearing today, those matters do not identify anything that may be procedural in nature, but in effect, the landlords disagree with the Tribunal’s decision, and seek another opportunity to argue their case again. I cannot approve a rehearing on that basis as confirmed in the District Court decisions set out above.
I have also considered the landlord’s written application which had additional grounds. But my assessment of that, is also that no grounds for approving a rehearing have been identified. I am not persuaded that there is new evidence available that either could not have been obtained and provided for the original hearing or would potentially change the outcome.
While I recognise that the landlords may be unhappy with the outcome of the original hearing, for better or worse, that is the outcome. There are no grounds I can see upon which a rehearing can be granted, so the rehearing application is declined.

Order

The landlords application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

On 4 April 2024 the Tribunal issued an order in relation to extensive applications from both the landlord and tenant. The landlord has applied for a rehearing. In order to consider if a rehearing should be ordered, the Tribunal convened a telephone hearing on 11 July 2024. In attendance were the landlords, and also the tenants represented by Mr George.

LANDLORDS CASE

The landlords seek a rehearing. The landlords raised various matters at the telephone hearing today: a. Issues around the pets that the tenants had and any losses they incurred. b. Issues around alleged harassment, and complaints made in relation to the power board, and being advised that there was no obligation on the landlords to replace the board. c. Complaints that the tenants made to the Police. d. Disputes around maintenance. e. Odours of the pets in the carpets at the end of the tenancy.
The landlord considers that the matters they now want to be reheard were raised at the original hearing but overlooked.
I note I have also considered the reasons set out in the written application for rehearing, which include: a. That the adjudicator improperly admitted evidence; and that b. New evidence is now available.

TENANTS CASE

The tenants were represented by Mr George at the telephone hearing. Mr George confirmed that the tenants were present with him on the call.
The tenants oppose the application for rehearing, and accept the Tribunal’s order.

ANALYSIS

The Tribunal has received an application for a rehearing, and therefore must decide whether a rehearing will be granted, and if so, on what terms.
Decisions issued by the Tribunal are binding on both parties, however the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) allows either party to apply for a rehearing. In particular section 105 of the RTA relates to rehearing’s. Subsection 1 confirms that: The Tribunal shall in all proceedings have the power to order a rehearing of the whole or any part of the proceedings on the ground that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur.
If a rehearing is granted, then the Tribunal would direct that the whole or part of the original hearing be held again.
The applicant need not establish an actual miscarriage of justice or substantial wrong, only that it may have occurred. However, in the District Court Judgment of Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, Judge Tuohy held that the statutory language set a high standard, and that: [18] ... They most obviously apply ... to cases of procedural error eg a hearing which takes place in the absence of a party who has not been given notice of it; the improper admission or rejection of evidence; misconduct by the adjudicator or by one of the parties or a witness. The words may also encompass the discovery of new and important evidence not previously available. [19] In my view, however, the words do not cover a complaint that the Tribunal was merely mistaken or wrong in its findings of fact or in its application of the law. There are two reasons for this. First the strength of the language in s 105 is such that something more than a mere wrong decision must be shown. The section does not speak of a decision being wrong, but of a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurring. This implies obvious injustice, not merely an erroneous decision. [20] Secondly, if a mere erroneous decision is enough, whether the error is factual or legal or both, it would enable parties to in effect appeal any decision twice: once to the very Tribunal which made it by way of an application for rehearing, and then again to the District Court against the grant or refusal of the application for rehearing. Not only does that offend the general hierarchical nature of the appeal system, it would also make the time limit for filing notice of appeal against an original decision nugatory.
As noted by Judge Christiansen in the District Court appeal of Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC 1993: In this Court’s view the Tribunal’s reasons for refusing a rehearing are correct. Rehearings are about challenges to processes and procedures and are not about what the adjudicator found or the decisions the adjudicator made.
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. In Jemma Trust v Rutherford (DC North Shore, CIV-2009-044-2056, 11 December 1999), the District Court quoted an extract from the Court of Appeal outlining the relevant considerations: The principles upon which further evidence is admitted are designed to balance the interests of the person seeking to adduce such evidence on the one hand with the interests of the opposite party is on the other. They are also designed to reflect the public interest in ensuring, so far as is possible, that parties put up their best case at trial. Any other approach would be very wasteful of public resources. The conventional requirements are that the further evidence must be fresh, it must be credible and it must be cogent. Evidence is not regarded as fresh if it could with reasonable diligence have been produced at the trial....While the absence of freshness is not an absolute disqualification, the criteria for admission in such circumstances must be very strict. In our view, when the evidence is not fresh it should not be admitted unless the circumstances are exceptional and the grounds compelling.
Having considered what the landlord raised at the telephone hearing today, those matters do not identify anything that may be procedural in nature, but in effect, the landlords disagree with the Tribunal’s decision, and seek another opportunity to argue their case again. I cannot approve a rehearing on that basis as confirmed in the District Court decisions set out above.
I have also considered the landlord’s written application which had additional grounds. But my assessment of that, is also that no grounds for approving a rehearing have been identified. I am not persuaded that there is new evidence available that either could not have been obtained and provided for the original hearing or would potentially change the outcome.
While I recognise that the landlords may be unhappy with the outcome of the original hearing, for better or worse, that is the outcome. There are no grounds I can see upon which a rehearing can be granted, so the rehearing application is declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4774757 — Harassment at 93 Sylvan Avenue, Northcote, Auckland 0627

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4774757 — Harassment at 93 Sylvan Avenue, Northcote, Auckland 0627

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

LANDLORDS CASE

TENANTS CASE

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

LANDLORDS CASE

TENANTS CASE

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions