What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4792001 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4792001?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4792001?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4792001?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11355666-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4792001 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4792001?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4792001?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4792001?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11355666-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

The Love Shack, 17 Wharf Road, Karamea 7893 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4792001 — Exemplary damages

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.
For the avoidance of any doubt, the stay of enforcement of the Tribunal’s order made on 4 October 2024 is removed.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by telephone. Both parties attended.
On 4 October 2024 the Tribunal made an order awarding the tenant compensation for various breaches by the landlord of his obligations, compensation to the landlord for a broken window and otherwise dismissed the parties’ claims.
On 21 November 2024 the landlord applied for a rehearing. The application refers to the tenant’s repeated interruptions during the hearing which the landlord says affected his ability to present his case effectively. He also refers to the late filing of his evidence which could have resulted in the Tribunal not fully considering it.
The landlord filed in statement on the morning of the hearing. It comments in more detail on the Tribunal’s decision by reference to paragraph numbers from the decision.
I asked the landlord to tell me about anything else that he was not able to or didn’t express in the original hearing that was relevant to the decision and he made some other comments that I refer to below.
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.
For the following reasons the landlord has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
I agree that the tenant interrupted the landlord repeatedly during the original hearing. Parties should allow other parties to speak uninterrupted. That is one of the cardinal rules in this Tribunal and it applies to any hearing and indeed most situations. Apart from anything else it is common courtesy.
I intervened on every occasion that the tenant interrupted and told her that she must not do so. My interventions became increasingly firm I and asked her to control herself. Her conduct did improve, but it was obvious that she lacked the self-control that could reasonably be expected in the circumstances.
I accept that the interruptions would have been frustrating for the landlord and they disrupted the flow of his evidence and submissions. But I do not accept that it had a significant effect on his ability to present his case or that there were aspects of his case that the Tribunal was not aware of or failed to appreciate.
I note that the landlord is a professional person who was well prepared for the hearing. He remained calm and composed during the hearing and I did not have any sense that he was overly disconcerted by the interruptions.
The original hearing took place on 23 September 2024 and my order was issued on 4 October. In between those times I took time to carefully consider the evidence including the written evidence and I am confident that I did not overlook or underappreciate any aspect of the landlord’s case or evidence.
After considering the landlord’s Statement provided for the rehearing application and his oral submissions, there is nothing there that I was not aware of or that I did not adequately consider when I made my decision.
When I asked the landlord if there was anything else that he felt he had not been able to get across he referred to the tenant’s son, but that played no part in my decision. I dismissed the tenant’s claim for breach of quiet enjoyment which related to the landlord’s reaction to the son living at the premises.
The landlord also referred to the evidence that he initially offered another, recently renovated unit, which the tenant declined in favour of the premises. He said that he regretted not insisting that the tenant took the other unit. This is not relevant to my decision either. The premises were either compliant with the Residential Tenancies Act or they weren’t. If they weren’t, they should not have been provided to the tenant.
In my view this case comes down to the landlord being unhappy with the outcome. He really has no reason to be. He admits that he did not know what his obligations as a landlord were and he largely admits the breaches of his obligations that I found to be proved. He put forward some mitigation which I took into consideration. There was no award of exemplary damages against him. The result could have been worse for him, and it follows that the result of a rehearing could also be worse.
The rehearing application was made well after the five days allowed by the Act. I find the landlord’s reasons for the lateness to be unconvincing. But I overlook that, and my decision is made on the substantive application.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.
For the avoidance of any doubt, the stay of enforcement of the Tribunal’s order made on 4 October 2024 is removed.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by telephone. Both parties attended.
On 4 October 2024 the Tribunal made an order awarding the tenant compensation for various breaches by the landlord of his obligations, compensation to the landlord for a broken window and otherwise dismissed the parties’ claims.
On 21 November 2024 the landlord applied for a rehearing. The application refers to the tenant’s repeated interruptions during the hearing which the landlord says affected his ability to present his case effectively. He also refers to the late filing of his evidence which could have resulted in the Tribunal not fully considering it.
The landlord filed in statement on the morning of the hearing. It comments in more detail on the Tribunal’s decision by reference to paragraph numbers from the decision.
I asked the landlord to tell me about anything else that he was not able to or didn’t express in the original hearing that was relevant to the decision and he made some other comments that I refer to below.
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.
For the following reasons the landlord has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
I agree that the tenant interrupted the landlord repeatedly during the original hearing. Parties should allow other parties to speak uninterrupted. That is one of the cardinal rules in this Tribunal and it applies to any hearing and indeed most situations. Apart from anything else it is common courtesy.
I intervened on every occasion that the tenant interrupted and told her that she must not do so. My interventions became increasingly firm I and asked her to control herself. Her conduct did improve, but it was obvious that she lacked the self-control that could reasonably be expected in the circumstances.
I accept that the interruptions would have been frustrating for the landlord and they disrupted the flow of his evidence and submissions. But I do not accept that it had a significant effect on his ability to present his case or that there were aspects of his case that the Tribunal was not aware of or failed to appreciate.
I note that the landlord is a professional person who was well prepared for the hearing. He remained calm and composed during the hearing and I did not have any sense that he was overly disconcerted by the interruptions.
The original hearing took place on 23 September 2024 and my order was issued on 4 October. In between those times I took time to carefully consider the evidence including the written evidence and I am confident that I did not overlook or underappreciate any aspect of the landlord’s case or evidence.
After considering the landlord’s Statement provided for the rehearing application and his oral submissions, there is nothing there that I was not aware of or that I did not adequately consider when I made my decision.
When I asked the landlord if there was anything else that he felt he had not been able to get across he referred to the tenant’s son, but that played no part in my decision. I dismissed the tenant’s claim for breach of quiet enjoyment which related to the landlord’s reaction to the son living at the premises.
The landlord also referred to the evidence that he initially offered another, recently renovated unit, which the tenant declined in favour of the premises. He said that he regretted not insisting that the tenant took the other unit. This is not relevant to my decision either. The premises were either compliant with the Residential Tenancies Act or they weren’t. If they weren’t, they should not have been provided to the tenant.
In my view this case comes down to the landlord being unhappy with the outcome. He really has no reason to be. He admits that he did not know what his obligations as a landlord were and he largely admits the breaches of his obligations that I found to be proved. He put forward some mitigation which I took into consideration. There was no award of exemplary damages against him. The result could have been worse for him, and it follows that the result of a rehearing could also be worse.
The rehearing application was made well after the five days allowed by the Act. I find the landlord’s reasons for the lateness to be unconvincing. But I overlook that, and my decision is made on the substantive application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4792001 — Exemplary damages at The Love Shack, 17 Wharf Road, Karamea 7893

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4792001 — Exemplary damages at The Love Shack, 17 Wharf Road, Karamea 7893

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions