What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4826118?

The tribunal order states: The application by the landlord for a rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4826118?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4826118?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4826118?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10625998-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4826118?

The tribunal order states: The application by the landlord for a rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4826118?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4826118?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4826118?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10625998-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

3 Ide Street, Harwood, RD 2, Dunedin 9077 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4826118 — Healthy homes

Order

The application by the landlord for a rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, the landlord by telephone from Australia.
On 1/5/2024 the Tribunal made an order for the landlord to pay exemplary damages and a filing fee of $6,480.44, which the tenant could deduct from the rent payable by them.
On 23/5/2024 the landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that he had not received notice of the hearing and the tenant had breached the tenancy agreement by keeping a dog.
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”.
To find that grounds for a rehearing exist, the applicant does not need to prove that an actual miscarriage or substantial wrong, only the potential for that, or that it may have occurred prima facie, Ward and Knight-Ward v Taitau [2021] NZDC 975.
In the District Court judgement of Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, His Honour Judge Touhy confirmed that the words “substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice”, set a high standard, stating: “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. ... 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. 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 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 this 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.”
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. I accept that Tenancy Services did not enter the correct email address for the landlord into the system resulting in him failing to receive the notice of hearing via email. b. While it is unfortunate that the landlord did not have an opportunity to speak at the original hearing, the extensive submissions provided by him support that he breached sections 13A(1A), 16A(1), 19(1), 45, 48(4)(a), 51 and 60AA. c. In particular the landlord confirmed he has lived in Australia since 2006 and had been renting out the premises for at least the last six years without appointing an agent. d. Further, while I found no breach of section 45(1)(bb) this was due to a mistake in calculating the compliance date for Healthy Homes Standards from which the landlord benefitted. e. The fact that the landlord disagrees with the decision is not grounds for a rehearing. f. The tenant did not want a rehearing. g. Based on the evidence of the landlord I am not persuaded that I would have come to any different conclusions.
I consider no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred and the application for rehearing fails.

Order

The application by the landlord for a rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, the landlord by telephone from Australia.
On 1/5/2024 the Tribunal made an order for the landlord to pay exemplary damages and a filing fee of $6,480.44, which the tenant could deduct from the rent payable by them.
On 23/5/2024 the landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that he had not received notice of the hearing and the tenant had breached the tenancy agreement by keeping a dog.
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”.
To find that grounds for a rehearing exist, the applicant does not need to prove that an actual miscarriage or substantial wrong, only the potential for that, or that it may have occurred prima facie, Ward and Knight-Ward v Taitau [2021] NZDC 975.
In the District Court judgement of Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, His Honour Judge Touhy confirmed that the words “substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice”, set a high standard, stating: “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. ... 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. 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 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 this 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.”
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. I accept that Tenancy Services did not enter the correct email address for the landlord into the system resulting in him failing to receive the notice of hearing via email. b. While it is unfortunate that the landlord did not have an opportunity to speak at the original hearing, the extensive submissions provided by him support that he breached sections 13A(1A), 16A(1), 19(1), 45, 48(4)(a), 51 and 60AA. c. In particular the landlord confirmed he has lived in Australia since 2006 and had been renting out the premises for at least the last six years without appointing an agent. d. Further, while I found no breach of section 45(1)(bb) this was due to a mistake in calculating the compliance date for Healthy Homes Standards from which the landlord benefitted. e. The fact that the landlord disagrees with the decision is not grounds for a rehearing. f. The tenant did not want a rehearing. g. Based on the evidence of the landlord I am not persuaded that I would have come to any different conclusions.
I consider no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred and the application for rehearing fails.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4826118 — Healthy homes at 3 Ide Street, Harwood, RD 2, Dunedin 9077

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4826118 — Healthy homes at 3 Ide Street, Harwood, RD 2, Dunedin 9077

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