What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4826136 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 4826136?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4826136?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4826136?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11106503-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4826136 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 4826136?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4826136?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4826136?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11106503-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4826136 — Exemplary damages

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.
The stay of proceedings has now lapsed. The original order issued by the Tribunal may be enforced.

Reasons

This hearing was attended by Ms Kwan and Mr Kong, owners/landlord; [The tenant/s]; and Mr Stanley Mak on behalf of Sunrise Property Management Services (Sunrise). The Tribunal was assisted by Ms Ha, interpreter.
On 17 July 2024 the Tribunal made an order determining the applications filed by the parties. The tenant applied for the return of the bond, overpaid rent, water charges, compensation, and exemplary damages. The landlord filed a counterclaim seeking payment from the bond, compensation for damage and exemplary damages. In its decision, the Tribunal ordered the landlord to pay $725.36 to the tenant, and refunded the bond to the tenant.
On 23 July 2024 Ms Kwan and Mr Kong (the landlord) applied for a rehearing and stay of proceedings. Detailed reasons were provided. Essentially, the landlord highlighted aspects of the evidence that supported their claim for compensation for damage, and addressed the tenant’s evidence, explaining why the tenant’s evidence ought not to be relied on. The landlord submitted that the Tribunal’s findings were not in accordance with the facts. Furthermore, in terms of responsibility for damage, the statutory burden had been incorrectly shifted to the landlord.
At the hearing, the landlord re-iterated the points noted in their application. The landlord submitted they had expected the Tribunal to be fair, but after receiving the order, they had their doubts. They sought to better understand the tenancy regulations, referred to the burden of proof, and the true facts of their case. The landlord explained, with reference to the evidence (including the inspection reports and photographs), why they did not agree with the Tribunal’s conclusions regarding the likely cause of the damage (to walls, carpet, benchtop, and other items).
The tenant responded, with reference to the inspection reports provided by Sunrise. Legal framework
Section 105(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) 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.
In Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, the District Court 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: [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...
In the case of Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC 1993 Judge Christiansen noted: Rehearings are about challenges to processes and procedures and are not about what the adjudicator found or the decisions the adjudicator made.
As the District Court has held, 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.
In Xpert Management Solutions Limited v Bravo [2015] NZDC 1506 the District Court confirmed that a rehearing will not be granted just because a party is unhappy with the decision, or because the applicant has a “desire to take issue with, or express a contrary view on the evidence to that reached by the Tribunal...” So, a rehearing will not be granted to give the party a second opportunity to present their case.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Having considered the landlord’s rehearing application, and the submissions of both parties, I find that the grounds for a rehearing have not been established. My reasons are set out below.
I acknowledge the landlord’s dissatisfaction with the conclusions reached by the Tribunal on the evidence. They have provided detailed reasons as to why they consider the Tribunal ought to have reached a different conclusion. However, as case law has established, a rehearing will not be granted because one party takes a contrary view on the evidence to that reached by the Tribunal. It is open to the Tribunal to reach different conclusions on the evidence presented by the parties. The fact that the Tribunal did not agree with the landlord’s submissions, based on the evidence provided for the hearing, is not sufficient grounds for a rehearing to be granted.
The landlord also questions whether the Tribunal correctly applied the burden of proof, with reference to some of its findings. The landlord’s reasons have been considered. However, as noted in case law referred to above, even if the Tribunal was incorrect in its application of the law, this is not sufficient to establish a miscarriage of justice, since something more than a mere wrong or erroneous decision must be established.
I acknowledge the landlord’s reasons for seeking a rehearing. However, the points raised are essentially not about procedural errors but rather, whether the decision was correct. This ultimately points to unhappiness with the decision, which does not justify the grant of a rehearing.
As the Court has held, a rehearing will not be granted where one party is unhappy with the decision, because it is not a second opportunity to present their case. Something more than a wrong or erroneous decision must be shown for a rehearing to be granted.
Accordingly, I find that the landlord has not been able to establish that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur. Therefore, the application for rehearing is dismissed.

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.
The stay of proceedings has now lapsed. The original order issued by the Tribunal may be enforced.

Reasons

This hearing was attended by Ms Kwan and Mr Kong, owners/landlord; [The tenant/s]; and Mr Stanley Mak on behalf of Sunrise Property Management Services (Sunrise). The Tribunal was assisted by Ms Ha, interpreter.
On 17 July 2024 the Tribunal made an order determining the applications filed by the parties. The tenant applied for the return of the bond, overpaid rent, water charges, compensation, and exemplary damages. The landlord filed a counterclaim seeking payment from the bond, compensation for damage and exemplary damages. In its decision, the Tribunal ordered the landlord to pay $725.36 to the tenant, and refunded the bond to the tenant.
On 23 July 2024 Ms Kwan and Mr Kong (the landlord) applied for a rehearing and stay of proceedings. Detailed reasons were provided. Essentially, the landlord highlighted aspects of the evidence that supported their claim for compensation for damage, and addressed the tenant’s evidence, explaining why the tenant’s evidence ought not to be relied on. The landlord submitted that the Tribunal’s findings were not in accordance with the facts. Furthermore, in terms of responsibility for damage, the statutory burden had been incorrectly shifted to the landlord.
At the hearing, the landlord re-iterated the points noted in their application. The landlord submitted they had expected the Tribunal to be fair, but after receiving the order, they had their doubts. They sought to better understand the tenancy regulations, referred to the burden of proof, and the true facts of their case. The landlord explained, with reference to the evidence (including the inspection reports and photographs), why they did not agree with the Tribunal’s conclusions regarding the likely cause of the damage (to walls, carpet, benchtop, and other items).
The tenant responded, with reference to the inspection reports provided by Sunrise. Legal framework
Section 105(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) 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.
In Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, the District Court 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: [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...
In the case of Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC 1993 Judge Christiansen noted: Rehearings are about challenges to processes and procedures and are not about what the adjudicator found or the decisions the adjudicator made.
As the District Court has held, 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.
In Xpert Management Solutions Limited v Bravo [2015] NZDC 1506 the District Court confirmed that a rehearing will not be granted just because a party is unhappy with the decision, or because the applicant has a “desire to take issue with, or express a contrary view on the evidence to that reached by the Tribunal...” So, a rehearing will not be granted to give the party a second opportunity to present their case.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Having considered the landlord’s rehearing application, and the submissions of both parties, I find that the grounds for a rehearing have not been established. My reasons are set out below.
I acknowledge the landlord’s dissatisfaction with the conclusions reached by the Tribunal on the evidence. They have provided detailed reasons as to why they consider the Tribunal ought to have reached a different conclusion. However, as case law has established, a rehearing will not be granted because one party takes a contrary view on the evidence to that reached by the Tribunal. It is open to the Tribunal to reach different conclusions on the evidence presented by the parties. The fact that the Tribunal did not agree with the landlord’s submissions, based on the evidence provided for the hearing, is not sufficient grounds for a rehearing to be granted.
The landlord also questions whether the Tribunal correctly applied the burden of proof, with reference to some of its findings. The landlord’s reasons have been considered. However, as noted in case law referred to above, even if the Tribunal was incorrect in its application of the law, this is not sufficient to establish a miscarriage of justice, since something more than a mere wrong or erroneous decision must be established.
I acknowledge the landlord’s reasons for seeking a rehearing. However, the points raised are essentially not about procedural errors but rather, whether the decision was correct. This ultimately points to unhappiness with the decision, which does not justify the grant of a rehearing.
As the Court has held, a rehearing will not be granted where one party is unhappy with the decision, because it is not a second opportunity to present their case. Something more than a wrong or erroneous decision must be shown for a rehearing to be granted.
Accordingly, I find that the landlord has not been able to establish that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur. Therefore, the application for rehearing is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4826136 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4826136 — Exemplary damages

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