What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4837004 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4837004?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4837004?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4837004?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10656896-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4837004 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4837004?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4837004?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4837004?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10656896-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4837004 — Exemplary damages

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended a rehearing hearing.
On 24 May 2024 the Tribunal made orders for compensation and exemplary damages. [The landlord/s] has applied for a rehearing. She accepts the exemplary damages awarded against her but claims that the compensation is “unfair” and not properly calculated. Her application also raised issued with the amount the tenant was ordered to pay for repairs.
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”.
On its face, the landlord’s application does not disclose a proper ground for rehearing. So, by Order dated 4 June 2024, I directed that the application be set down for a rehearing hearing to decide whether to grant a rehearing of the original matter. See Xpert Management Solutions Ltd v Bravo [2015] NZDC 1506, 9 February 2015, Judge de Ridder.
I set out the grounds for rehearing and the issues the landlord would have to address at the rehearing hearing.
In the 4 June Order, I also explained that, if a rehearing is granted, the original application would be adjourned to a later date to re reheard by a different adjudicator.
I did not grant a stay of proceedings but the tenant advises that the landlord has not paid the amount awarded to the tenant in the 24 May 2024 Order.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

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.
The landlord’s primary criticism of the 24 May 2024 Order relates to the calculation of the compensation awarded. That is not a ground for rehearing.
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: once to the very Tribunal which made it 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 that 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.
The landlord did not identify any errors of process by the Tribunal which may give rise to a rehearing.
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 Jemma Trust v Rutherford (DC North Shore, CIV-2009-044-2056, 11 December 1999), the District Court quoted an extract from the Court of Appeal outlining the relevant considerations: The principles upon which further evidence is admitted are designed to balance the interests of the person seeking to adduce such evidence on the one hand with the interests of the opposite party is on the other. They are also designed to reflect the public interest in ensuring, so far as is possible, that parties put up their best case at trial. Any other approach would be very wasteful of public resources. The conventional requirements are that the further evidence must be fresh, it must be credible and it must be cogent. Evidence is not regarded as fresh if it could with reasonable diligence have been produced at the trial....While the absence of freshness is not an absolute disqualification, the criteria for admission in such circumstances must be very strict. In our view, when the evidence is not fresh it should not be admitted unless the circumstances are exceptional and the grounds compelling.
The landlord made submissions regarding the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy which was not (and could not have been) taken into account at the last hearing. The landlord made claims at the last hearing regarding doors and paintwork required. Those claims have been considered and final decisions have been made. The landlord cannot re-open those issues because she did not visit the property before the last hearing, or she made the claims without all of the evidence. I noted, throughout the last hearing, that the landlord had the onus of proving her claims and providing the Tribunal with the evidence required to do so.
The landlord did not identify any evidence that was not reasonably available to her at the last hearing which may have affected the outcome.
The landlord has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing. The application for rehearing is dismissed.
For the avoidance of doubt, I record that all issues raised in these applications are now res judiciata. That means, that they cannot be included in any future applications to the Tribunal regarding this tenancy. I have made this note, because there seemed to be some suggestion by the landlord, that if I did not amend the 24 May Order or grant a rehearing, she would make another application to the Tribunal.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended a rehearing hearing.
On 24 May 2024 the Tribunal made orders for compensation and exemplary damages. [The landlord/s] has applied for a rehearing. She accepts the exemplary damages awarded against her but claims that the compensation is “unfair” and not properly calculated. Her application also raised issued with the amount the tenant was ordered to pay for repairs.
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”.
On its face, the landlord’s application does not disclose a proper ground for rehearing. So, by Order dated 4 June 2024, I directed that the application be set down for a rehearing hearing to decide whether to grant a rehearing of the original matter. See Xpert Management Solutions Ltd v Bravo [2015] NZDC 1506, 9 February 2015, Judge de Ridder.
I set out the grounds for rehearing and the issues the landlord would have to address at the rehearing hearing.
In the 4 June Order, I also explained that, if a rehearing is granted, the original application would be adjourned to a later date to re reheard by a different adjudicator.
I did not grant a stay of proceedings but the tenant advises that the landlord has not paid the amount awarded to the tenant in the 24 May 2024 Order.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

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.
The landlord’s primary criticism of the 24 May 2024 Order relates to the calculation of the compensation awarded. That is not a ground for rehearing.
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: once to the very Tribunal which made it 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 that 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.
The landlord did not identify any errors of process by the Tribunal which may give rise to a rehearing.
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 Jemma Trust v Rutherford (DC North Shore, CIV-2009-044-2056, 11 December 1999), the District Court quoted an extract from the Court of Appeal outlining the relevant considerations: The principles upon which further evidence is admitted are designed to balance the interests of the person seeking to adduce such evidence on the one hand with the interests of the opposite party is on the other. They are also designed to reflect the public interest in ensuring, so far as is possible, that parties put up their best case at trial. Any other approach would be very wasteful of public resources. The conventional requirements are that the further evidence must be fresh, it must be credible and it must be cogent. Evidence is not regarded as fresh if it could with reasonable diligence have been produced at the trial....While the absence of freshness is not an absolute disqualification, the criteria for admission in such circumstances must be very strict. In our view, when the evidence is not fresh it should not be admitted unless the circumstances are exceptional and the grounds compelling.
The landlord made submissions regarding the condition of the property at the end of the tenancy which was not (and could not have been) taken into account at the last hearing. The landlord made claims at the last hearing regarding doors and paintwork required. Those claims have been considered and final decisions have been made. The landlord cannot re-open those issues because she did not visit the property before the last hearing, or she made the claims without all of the evidence. I noted, throughout the last hearing, that the landlord had the onus of proving her claims and providing the Tribunal with the evidence required to do so.
The landlord did not identify any evidence that was not reasonably available to her at the last hearing which may have affected the outcome.
The landlord has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing. The application for rehearing is dismissed.
For the avoidance of doubt, I record that all issues raised in these applications are now res judiciata. That means, that they cannot be included in any future applications to the Tribunal regarding this tenancy. I have made this note, because there seemed to be some suggestion by the landlord, that if I did not amend the 24 May Order or grant a rehearing, she would make another application to the Tribunal.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4837004 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4837004 — 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