What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4862763 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4862763?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4862763?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4862763?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10517469-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4862763 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4862763?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4862763?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4862763?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10517469-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4862763 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 24 May 2024 the Tribunal made an order for: a. The term of the fixed-term tenancy of [the tenants] at [tenancy address suppressed] is reduced and now ends at 11:59pm on Friday 31 May 2024. b. [The tenants] must pay Tbt Property Management Limited $977.50 immediately. Tbt Property Management Limited must pay [the tenants] $20.44 immediately.
On 28 May 2024, the tenants contacted the Tribunal seeking clarification about why the 24 May 2024 Order stated that they owed the landlord $977.50 for a break lease fee when paragraph [17] clearly states “...Therefore, I am satisfied that the tenancy is a periodic tenancy, no break lease fees are payable, and the tenancy ends on 31 May 2024, as per the tenants 2 April 2024 written notice”.
On 28 May 2024, I reissued the amended Order with the award of the $977.50 break lease fee removed from the Order, so that the Order section matched the reason section in paragraph [17] and an email was sent to the parties apologising for the administrative error and explaining why the Order had been amended and the correct version re-issued.
On 31 May 2024, Tbt Property Management Limited applied for a rehearing on the grounds that the adjudicator improperly admitted or rejected evidence and new evidence related to the original application has become available.
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?

No evidence has been provided by the landlord that supports a claim that an error in process or a substantial miscarriage of justice has occurred that would justify the granting of a rehearing.
The landlord did not present any important new evidence in its rehearing application or at today’s hearing that it could not have obtained with reasonable diligence for the original hearing.
The evidence it provided in its rehearing application and that it reiterated to me today shows that it went out to get new evidence after the original order as it had felt confident in its position and had not considered it would require evidence from Dylan Wilson to defend the tenant’s claims. It was also seeking to rely on Palace records that it did not submit in evidence at the original hearing or in its re-hearing application.
The landlord told me that it had tried to call Dylan and he had not returned its calls until after the original hearing and told me that it had not really tried to contact Dylan any further as it did not consider it required his evidence as the tenancy agreement stood on its own as being sound evidence that a fixed term tenancy has been agreed to by the tenants on 15 January 2024, when they signed the tenancy agreement and that the version that they signed was the version submitted in evidence, without modification by Dylan after leaving the tenants home. The landlord also told me today that the owner was present when the tenants signed the tenancy agreement and can attest to the fact the tenants agreed to a 6-month fixed term tenancy. The owner had not given this evidence at the original hearing and this evidence was not provided to the Tribunal with the rehearing application. Again, this was evidence that was reasonably available to the landlord with reasonable diligence for the original hearing.
The landlord also reiterated to me repeatedly that it was more financially disadvantaged by the tenant being released from the fixed term tenancy early than the tenants were and he disagreed with my decision that the tenants were more fiscally disadvantaged than was the landlord because he had provided evidence that he had spent a large sum of money assisting his mother who was in poor health and dying.
The landlord has accused the Tribunal of having made up its mind before the hearing today, to have only considered the tenants evidence and to have unreasonably refused to consider the new evidence it has found since the original hearing.
The Tribunal confirms it consider all evidence submitted by both parties, and the landlord has confirmed it was not happy with the Tribunal’s decision, so the Adjudicator could not have fully considered its evidence. A rehearing is not an opportunity for a party to that is unhappy with a Tribunal decision to have a second opportunity to present and/or relitigate its case. It is also not an opportunity to present evidence that was reasonably available to the landlord with reasonable diligence and to ask that such evidence be treated as new evidence that justifies a rehearing.
For all the reasons set out above, the rehearing application is dismissed, and the original Order dated 28 May 2024 stands.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

On 24 May 2024 the Tribunal made an order for: a. The term of the fixed-term tenancy of [the tenants] at [tenancy address suppressed] is reduced and now ends at 11:59pm on Friday 31 May 2024. b. [The tenants] must pay Tbt Property Management Limited $977.50 immediately. Tbt Property Management Limited must pay [the tenants] $20.44 immediately.

On 28 May 2024, the tenants contacted the Tribunal seeking clarification about why the 24 May 2024 Order stated that they owed the landlord $977.50 for a break lease fee when paragraph [17] clearly states “...Therefore, I am satisfied that the tenancy is a periodic tenancy, no break lease fees are payable, and the tenancy ends on 31 May 2024, as per the tenants 2 April 2024 written notice”.

On 28 May 2024, I reissued the amended Order with the award of the $977.50 break lease fee removed from the Order, so that the Order section matched the reason section in paragraph [17] and an email was sent to the parties apologising for the administrative error and explaining why the Order had been amended and the correct version re-issued.

On 31 May 2024, Tbt Property Management Limited applied for a rehearing on the grounds that the adjudicator improperly admitted or rejected evidence and new evidence related to the original application has become available.

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?

No evidence has been provided by the landlord that supports a claim that an error in process or a substantial miscarriage of justice has occurred that would justify the granting of a rehearing.

The landlord did not present any important new evidence in its rehearing application or at today’s hearing that it could not have obtained with reasonable diligence for the original hearing.

The evidence it provided in its rehearing application and that it reiterated to me today shows that it went out to get new evidence after the original order as it had felt confident in its position and had not considered it would require evidence from Dylan Wilson to defend the tenant’s claims. It was also seeking to rely on Palace records that it did not submit in evidence at the original hearing or in its re-hearing application.

The landlord told me that it had tried to call Dylan and he had not returned its calls until after the original hearing and told me that it had not really tried to contact Dylan any further as it did not consider it required his evidence as the tenancy agreement stood on its own as being sound evidence that a fixed term tenancy has been agreed to by the tenants on 15 January 2024, when they signed the tenancy agreement and that the version that they signed was the version submitted in evidence, without modification by Dylan after leaving the tenants home. The landlord also told me today that the owner was present when the tenants signed the tenancy agreement and can attest to the fact the tenants agreed to a 6-month fixed term tenancy. The owner had not given this evidence at the original hearing and this evidence was not provided to the Tribunal with the rehearing application. Again, this was evidence that was reasonably available to the landlord with reasonable diligence for the original hearing.

The landlord also reiterated to me repeatedly that it was more financially disadvantaged by the tenant being released from the fixed term tenancy early than the tenants were and he disagreed with my decision that the tenants were more fiscally disadvantaged than was the landlord because he had provided evidence that he had spent a large sum of money assisting his mother who was in poor health and dying.

The landlord has accused the Tribunal of having made up its mind before the hearing today, to have only considered the tenants evidence and to have unreasonably refused to consider the new evidence it has found since the original hearing.

The Tribunal confirms it consider all evidence submitted by both parties, and the landlord has confirmed it was not happy with the Tribunal’s decision, so the Adjudicator could not have fully considered its evidence. A rehearing is not an opportunity for a party to that is unhappy with a Tribunal decision to have a second opportunity to present and/or relitigate its case. It is also not an opportunity to present evidence that was reasonably available to the landlord with reasonable diligence and to ask that such evidence be treated as new evidence that justifies a rehearing.

For all the reasons set out above, the rehearing application is dismissed, and the original Order dated 28 May 2024 stands.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4862763 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4862763 — 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