What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4799561 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4799561?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4799561?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4799561?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10508318-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4799561 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4799561?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4799561?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4799561?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10508318-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4799561 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing of the rehearing application.
On 6 March 2024, the Tribunal made a consent order in which both parties agreed to withdraw their claims against each other in full and final settlement of their dispute.
On 8 March 2024, the landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that: a. Most of the hearing time was used for the tenant’s claim and she was not able to give all her evidence. b. She felt pressured to finalise her claim by being asked in the presence of the other party. c. Being separated from her children was stressful and she found it hard to think clearly. d. Although the claim should not have gone to court, because it had reached that stage it should have been finalised. e. She has incurred substantial repair costs and has a methamphetamine report. f. Not completing the case caused a substantial miscarriage of justice. Law
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”.
In the case of a mediated order, the Tribunal can order a rehearing, but it requires a high threshold to be met. In the case of Xpert Management Solutions Ltd v Bravo [2015] NZDC 1506, the District Court stated [at paras 9 and 15]: [9] The mediated agreement is ... a proceeding and therefore able to be the subject of an application for a rehearing. However, clearly such instances will be very rare because of course the whole basis of a mediated order is that it reflects the agreement between the parties whereas an order made by the Tribunal at the conclusion of a hearing frequently does not. In my view, given that the mediation process is one of the cornerstones of the legislation, the party applying for a rehearing would have to show exceptional circumstances for an agreement which the applicant was a party to be either substantially wrong or a miscarriage of justice having arisen therefrom. [15] ... [T]o allow a party to resile from an agreement that reflected the parties position at that time simply because of a change of mind at a later time would, in my view, be an unsatisfactory position and would circumvent the cornerstone principle I mentioned earlier.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Although the consent order was not a mediated order in the strict sense, the principle discussed in Bravo is applicable as the parties reached a mutual agreement on how to resolve their claims.
The hearing involved a claim filed by the tenant and a counterclaim by the landlord. A two-hour hearing time was allocated, which was insufficient to hear both claims. Because the tenant’s claim was filed first in time, and related to events occurring during the tenancy, it was heard first. The landlord started to present her counterclaim towards the end of the allocated hearing time. The parties were advised that the remainder of the landlord’s claim would need to be adjourned to a later date.
The parties discussed whether they wished to resolve the case by agreement and the landlord proposed that both parties withdraw their claims. The discussion necessarily required the participation of both parties.
While the landlord may have been influenced to settle her claim by a desire to prioritise her family over the proceedings, she was not subject to any external pressure to settle. She maintained her view that she had a strong case against the tenant and knew what she was compromising by making the agreement. Both parties were given ample opportunity to consider whether they wanted to settle then and there. The landlord confirmed that she wanted to settle, and her agreement was fully informed.
As the District Court stated in Bravo, in these circumstances it would be unsatisfactory to allow a party to resile form an agreement voluntarily made. Therefore, I find that the landlord has failed to establish a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.
Because the original consent order was not published, I have ordered suppression of the parties’ names. J P Smith 27 June 2024

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing of the rehearing application.

On 6 March 2024, the Tribunal made a consent order in which both parties agreed to withdraw their claims against each other in full and final settlement of their dispute.

On 8 March 2024, the landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that: a. Most of the hearing time was used for the tenant’s claim and she was not able to give all her evidence. b. She felt pressured to finalise her claim by being asked in the presence of the other party. c. Being separated from her children was stressful and she found it hard to think clearly. d. Although the claim should not have gone to court, because it had reached that stage it should have been finalised. e. She has incurred substantial repair costs and has a methamphetamine report. f. Not completing the case caused a substantial miscarriage of justice. Law

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”.

In the case of a mediated order, the Tribunal can order a rehearing, but it requires a high threshold to be met. In the case of Xpert Management Solutions Ltd v Bravo [2015] NZDC 1506, the District Court stated [at paras 9 and 15]: [9] The mediated agreement is ... a proceeding and therefore able to be the subject of an application for a rehearing. However, clearly such instances will be very rare because of course the whole basis of a mediated order is that it reflects the agreement between the parties whereas an order made by the Tribunal at the conclusion of a hearing frequently does not. In my view, given that the mediation process is one of the cornerstones of the legislation, the party applying for a rehearing would have to show exceptional circumstances for an agreement which the applicant was a party to be either substantially wrong or a miscarriage of justice having arisen therefrom. [15] ... [T]o allow a party to resile from an agreement that reflected the parties position at that time simply because of a change of mind at a later time would, in my view, be an unsatisfactory position and would circumvent the cornerstone principle I mentioned earlier.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Although the consent order was not a mediated order in the strict sense, the principle discussed in Bravo is applicable as the parties reached a mutual agreement on how to resolve their claims.

The hearing involved a claim filed by the tenant and a counterclaim by the landlord. A two-hour hearing time was allocated, which was insufficient to hear both claims. Because the tenant’s claim was filed first in time, and related to events occurring during the tenancy, it was heard first. The landlord started to present her counterclaim towards the end of the allocated hearing time. The parties were advised that the remainder of the landlord’s claim would need to be adjourned to a later date.

The parties discussed whether they wished to resolve the case by agreement and the landlord proposed that both parties withdraw their claims. The discussion necessarily required the participation of both parties.

While the landlord may have been influenced to settle her claim by a desire to prioritise her family over the proceedings, she was not subject to any external pressure to settle. She maintained her view that she had a strong case against the tenant and knew what she was compromising by making the agreement. Both parties were given ample opportunity to consider whether they wanted to settle then and there. The landlord confirmed that she wanted to settle, and her agreement was fully informed.

As the District Court stated in Bravo, in these circumstances it would be unsatisfactory to allow a party to resile form an agreement voluntarily made. Therefore, I find that the landlord has failed to establish a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.

Because the original consent order was not published, I have ordered suppression of the parties’ names. J P Smith 27 June 2024

Tenancy Tribunal case 4799561 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4799561 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions