What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4803579 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4803579?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4803579?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4803579?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11366461-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4803579 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 4803579?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4803579?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4803579?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11366461-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

51 Harvey Street, Tauranga South, Tauranga 3112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4803579 — Cleanliness

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held to determine whether the matter should be reheard.
On 13 November 2024 the Tribunal made an order for the remaining bond of $360.00 to be returned to the tenant and for the landlord to reimburse the filing fee to the tenant.
On 18 November 2024 the landlord applied for a rehearing on the following grounds: (a) That the adjudicator incorrectly stated that he, the landlord, was trying to present a cross-application whereas in fact he was introducing a defence to the claim which he was prevented from making; and (b) The adjudicator called the second witness without giving him an opportunity to firstly cross examine the tenant; and (c) The adjudicator stated that she had “likely pre-determined” the claim and then later that she “had pre-determined” the claim; and (d) That the applicant withheld documents relating to cleaning and therefore misled the Tribunal.
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.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons the landlord has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing: (a) Section 22B(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 is quite clear. If a tenant makes a claim for the bond and the landlord has not filed an application in the Tribunal for the bond, then the bond must be returned to the tenant. The adjudicator correctly applied this law. Even if Mr Attwood has a defence to not having returned the entire bond, he must file an application to the Tribunal setting out his claim; and (b) An adjudicator is entitled to run a hearing as they see fit. If the adjudicator wanted to hear from both witnesses before allowing Mr Attwood an opportunity to cross-examine both or either witness, she may do so. I note that Mr Attwood left the hearing before the second witness was called; and (c) After being questioned by Mr Attwood, the adjudicator indicated the “likely outcome” of the proceedings, having regard to the law that she had just explained. At the rehearing consideration hearing we were unable to go further with replaying the tape but after the hearing ended I was able to get further assistance from the judicial IT person and listen to what was said next. Mr Attwood says that it was his firm recollection that the adjudicator said “yes” when asked by him whether she had predetermined the matter. However, on hearing the recording again the adjudicator askes Mr Attwood whether he is leaving. He says he is going because she has pre-determined the matter and the adjudicator replies “okay”. In my view the adjudicator is saying “okay” to Mr Attwood’s leaving the hearing, and not to having pre-determined the matter. (d) Whether or not the applicant withheld documents regarding cleaning and/or electricity owing is immaterial to whether the bond ought to be refunded to the tenant. This claim was not about cleaning or electricity. It was purely about whether the bond was to be refunded.
Further to all of the above, I do not consider that a substantial miscarriage of justice has occurred because it remains open to the landlord to bring a claim against the tenant. All that has occurred so far is that the bond has been returned to the tenant. To be clear, this refund does not preclude the landlord from making an application in the Tribunal against the tenant. C ter Haar 29 January 2025

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held to determine whether the matter should be reheard.
On 13 November 2024 the Tribunal made an order for the remaining bond of $360.00 to be returned to the tenant and for the landlord to reimburse the filing fee to the tenant.
On 18 November 2024 the landlord applied for a rehearing on the following grounds: (a) That the adjudicator incorrectly stated that he, the landlord, was trying to present a cross-application whereas in fact he was introducing a defence to the claim which he was prevented from making; and (b) The adjudicator called the second witness without giving him an opportunity to firstly cross examine the tenant; and (c) The adjudicator stated that she had “likely pre-determined” the claim and then later that she “had pre-determined” the claim; and (d) That the applicant withheld documents relating to cleaning and therefore misled the Tribunal.
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.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons the landlord has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing: (a) Section 22B(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 is quite clear. If a tenant makes a claim for the bond and the landlord has not filed an application in the Tribunal for the bond, then the bond must be returned to the tenant. The adjudicator correctly applied this law. Even if Mr Attwood has a defence to not having returned the entire bond, he must file an application to the Tribunal setting out his claim; and (b) An adjudicator is entitled to run a hearing as they see fit. If the adjudicator wanted to hear from both witnesses before allowing Mr Attwood an opportunity to cross-examine both or either witness, she may do so. I note that Mr Attwood left the hearing before the second witness was called; and (c) After being questioned by Mr Attwood, the adjudicator indicated the “likely outcome” of the proceedings, having regard to the law that she had just explained. At the rehearing consideration hearing we were unable to go further with replaying the tape but after the hearing ended I was able to get further assistance from the judicial IT person and listen to what was said next. Mr Attwood says that it was his firm recollection that the adjudicator said “yes” when asked by him whether she had predetermined the matter. However, on hearing the recording again the adjudicator askes Mr Attwood whether he is leaving. He says he is going because she has pre-determined the matter and the adjudicator replies “okay”. In my view the adjudicator is saying “okay” to Mr Attwood’s leaving the hearing, and not to having pre-determined the matter. (d) Whether or not the applicant withheld documents regarding cleaning and/or electricity owing is immaterial to whether the bond ought to be refunded to the tenant. This claim was not about cleaning or electricity. It was purely about whether the bond was to be refunded.
Further to all of the above, I do not consider that a substantial miscarriage of justice has occurred because it remains open to the landlord to bring a claim against the tenant. All that has occurred so far is that the bond has been returned to the tenant. To be clear, this refund does not preclude the landlord from making an application in the Tribunal against the tenant. C ter Haar 29 January 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 4803579 — Cleanliness at 51 Harvey Street, Tauranga South, Tauranga 3112

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4803579 — Cleanliness at 51 Harvey Street, Tauranga South, Tauranga 3112

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

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions