What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4867321?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4867321?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4867321?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4867321?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11379746-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4867321?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4867321?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4867321?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4867321?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11379746-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

26 Waterhouse Street, Masterton, Masterton 5810 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4867321 — Exemplary damages

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application for rehearing filed by the landlord. A telephone hearing was convened today to consider that rehearing request.

BACKGROUND

In terms of this rehearing request, the background can be summarised succinctly as follows.
There was a tenancy between Ms Ballin and Mr and Mrs Lander. The tenancy ended.
Various disputes arose between the parties. The landord considers that the tenant owed them the sum of $640.00 for various things, but declined to release the bond to the tenant.
The tenant filed an application with the Tribunal seeking a return of her bond, including other compensation and exemplary damages claims.
A hearing was scheduled for 20 September 2024.
In advance of the hearing, the landlord applied for a video hearing, on the basis that they had security concerns around the tenant. Given the complexity of the claim (as it was at the time), this was declined. However the Tribunal confirmed that Court Security could be present during the hearing.
There was no appearance at the hearing by the landlord on. At the hearing, the only claims the tenant wanted to advance were a claim for a refund of her bond, and a refund of a claimed rent overpayment.
In a decision issued the same day, the Tribunal ordered a return of the bond to the tenant in full, but dismissed the claim for a rent overpayment (it was not established).
The landlord applied for a rehearing on 4 October 2024.
On 31 January 2025 I convened a hearing to hear from the parties to decide if a rehearing would be granted. APPLICANT’S POSITION
The landlord submits that a rehearing should be granted for these reasons: a. There have been a number of ‘expenses’ that the landlord does not consider they should be liable for. b. The landlord states that they did not attend the hearing because they were not available, because they were in Auckland 17 th to 25 th September. The landlord states they were “definitely away”. c. The landlord refers to the application for why the rehearing should be granted. The landlord wants costs covered that they consider the tenant owes. d. The landlord advised they did not wish to attend the hearing in person, because they did not wish to be in the same room as the tenant. e. The landlord feels that they were not heard, and nor were their arguments or photographs considered. RESPONDENT’S POSITION
The tenant opposes the rehearing request for these reasons: a. The Tribunal hearing was notified months before the hearing occurred. b. The landlord knew of the hearing.

RELEVANT LAW

Section 105 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 relates to rehearings. Subsection 1 confirms that: The Tribunal shall in all proceedings have the power to order a rehearing of the whole or any part of the proceedings on the ground that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur.
The applicant need not establish an actual miscarriage of justice or substantial wrong, only that it may have occurred. However, in the District Court Judgment of Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, Judge Tuohy held that the statutory language set a high standard, and that: [18] ... 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. [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.”
As noted by Judge Christiansen in the District Court appeal of Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC 1993: In this Court’s view the Tribunal’s reasons for refusing a rehearing are correct. Rehearings are about challenges to processes and procedures and are not about what the adjudicator found or the decisions the adjudicator made.

ANALYSIS

I have set out the relevant law that applies to rehearings above. In short, re- hearings are a safety measure should something have gone wrong with the hearing, normally on a procedural basis, in which case a rehearing can be approved so that the matter then returns to the Tribunal for a further hearing.
I have considered the submissions from the landlord, and find that no procedural issues have been identified, and I cannot see any potential for a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice to justify a rehearing, for these reasons. a. Plainly the landlord was aware of the hearing. If the landlords wanted to be heard, they needed to attend the hearing, just as the tenant had done. b. I do not accept that security concerns were a valid reason not to attend. The Tribunal confirmed that Court Security would be present, which in the absence of evidence showing an extreme risk, would have been sufficient. 1 c. Even if the landlord had attended the hearing, there is no prospect the outcome could have been better for them. The only matters the tenant 1 I note at the hearing today, the landlords in fact advised the reason they could not attend is because they were in Auckland. pursued were a bond refund and rent overpayment. The rent overpayment claim was dismissed, obviously that could not have been a better outcome for the landlord. In terms of the bond release, ordering a release of the bond was inevitable, irrespective of what the landlord said at the hearing. As I explained in the order from 20 September 2024, if the tenant applies for a bond refund when the tenancy has ended, the Tribunal must order a refund of the bond, unless the landlord has filed a cross-application. Here the landlord had not filed a cross-application, so unless the tenant agreed to some bond being paid to the landlord, the Tribunal had no option other than to return the bond to the tenant. d. The landlords have not filed any application with the Tribunal. The landlord cannot make claims before the Tribunal (such as the costs the landlord is claiming) without filing their own application. I note that even at 31 January 2025, the Tribunal’s system does not record any application being filed by the landlord.
I find there is no basis to order a rehearing, so the application for rehearing is dismissed.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application for rehearing filed by the landlord. A telephone hearing was convened today to consider that rehearing request.

BACKGROUND

In terms of this rehearing request, the background can be summarised succinctly as follows.
There was a tenancy between Ms Ballin and Mr and Mrs Lander. The tenancy ended.
Various disputes arose between the parties. The landord considers that the tenant owed them the sum of $640.00 for various things, but declined to release the bond to the tenant.
The tenant filed an application with the Tribunal seeking a return of her bond, including other compensation and exemplary damages claims.
A hearing was scheduled for 20 September 2024.
In advance of the hearing, the landlord applied for a video hearing, on the basis that they had security concerns around the tenant. Given the complexity of the claim (as it was at the time), this was declined. However the Tribunal confirmed that Court Security could be present during the hearing.
There was no appearance at the hearing by the landlord on. At the hearing, the only claims the tenant wanted to advance were a claim for a refund of her bond, and a refund of a claimed rent overpayment.
In a decision issued the same day, the Tribunal ordered a return of the bond to the tenant in full, but dismissed the claim for a rent overpayment (it was not established).
The landlord applied for a rehearing on 4 October 2024.
On 31 January 2025 I convened a hearing to hear from the parties to decide if a rehearing would be granted. APPLICANT’S POSITION
The landlord submits that a rehearing should be granted for these reasons: a. There have been a number of ‘expenses’ that the landlord does not consider they should be liable for. b. The landlord states that they did not attend the hearing because they were not available, because they were in Auckland 17 th to 25 th September. The landlord states they were “definitely away”. c. The landlord refers to the application for why the rehearing should be granted. The landlord wants costs covered that they consider the tenant owes. d. The landlord advised they did not wish to attend the hearing in person, because they did not wish to be in the same room as the tenant. e. The landlord feels that they were not heard, and nor were their arguments or photographs considered. RESPONDENT’S POSITION
The tenant opposes the rehearing request for these reasons: a. The Tribunal hearing was notified months before the hearing occurred. b. The landlord knew of the hearing.

RELEVANT LAW

Section 105 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 relates to rehearings. Subsection 1 confirms that: The Tribunal shall in all proceedings have the power to order a rehearing of the whole or any part of the proceedings on the ground that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur.
The applicant need not establish an actual miscarriage of justice or substantial wrong, only that it may have occurred. However, in the District Court Judgment of Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, Judge Tuohy held that the statutory language set a high standard, and that: [18] ... 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. [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.”
As noted by Judge Christiansen in the District Court appeal of Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC 1993: In this Court’s view the Tribunal’s reasons for refusing a rehearing are correct. Rehearings are about challenges to processes and procedures and are not about what the adjudicator found or the decisions the adjudicator made.

ANALYSIS

I have set out the relevant law that applies to rehearings above. In short, re- hearings are a safety measure should something have gone wrong with the hearing, normally on a procedural basis, in which case a rehearing can be approved so that the matter then returns to the Tribunal for a further hearing.
I have considered the submissions from the landlord, and find that no procedural issues have been identified, and I cannot see any potential for a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice to justify a rehearing, for these reasons. a. Plainly the landlord was aware of the hearing. If the landlords wanted to be heard, they needed to attend the hearing, just as the tenant had done. b. I do not accept that security concerns were a valid reason not to attend. The Tribunal confirmed that Court Security would be present, which in the absence of evidence showing an extreme risk, would have been sufficient. 1 c. Even if the landlord had attended the hearing, there is no prospect the outcome could have been better for them. The only matters the tenant 1 I note at the hearing today, the landlords in fact advised the reason they could not attend is because they were in Auckland. pursued were a bond refund and rent overpayment. The rent overpayment claim was dismissed, obviously that could not have been a better outcome for the landlord. In terms of the bond release, ordering a release of the bond was inevitable, irrespective of what the landlord said at the hearing. As I explained in the order from 20 September 2024, if the tenant applies for a bond refund when the tenancy has ended, the Tribunal must order a refund of the bond, unless the landlord has filed a cross-application. Here the landlord had not filed a cross-application, so unless the tenant agreed to some bond being paid to the landlord, the Tribunal had no option other than to return the bond to the tenant. d. The landlords have not filed any application with the Tribunal. The landlord cannot make claims before the Tribunal (such as the costs the landlord is claiming) without filing their own application. I note that even at 31 January 2025, the Tribunal’s system does not record any application being filed by the landlord.
I find there is no basis to order a rehearing, so the application for rehearing is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4867321 — Exemplary damages at 26 Waterhouse Street, Masterton, Masterton 5810

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4867321 — Exemplary damages at 26 Waterhouse Street, Masterton, Masterton 5810

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LAW

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LAW

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions