What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4931113 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4931113?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4931113?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4931113?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11123705-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4931113 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4931113?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4931113?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4931113?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11123705-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat 50, 305 Evans Bay Parade, Hataitai, Wellington Tenancy Tribunal Case 4931113 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.

On 4 November 2024 the Tribunal made an order for compensation and the refund of the bond. Several claims were dismissed because they were not proved.

On 5 November 2024 the landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that the landlord was owed a week of rent and that the owner had provided better evidence since the order was made.

Section 105(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the which 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 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.

In summary, this means the Tribunal should only accept new evidence if there is a very good reason why it was not available at the first hearing. The landlord here said the evidence was reasonably available at the first hearing but there was a misunderstanding between the owner and the landlord as to who had the evidence. This means the circumstances are not exceptional. I find this is not grounds for a rehearing.

The week of rent in question was discussed at the hearing. The claim was not allowed because I was not provided with a full rent summary. A full rent summary is the basic requirement for a rent claim, and it was reasonably available to the landlord when we had the hearing. This is not grounds for a rehearing.

Suppression was allowed for the landlord and continues.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.

On 4 November 2024 the Tribunal made an order for compensation and the refund of the bond. Several claims were dismissed because they were not proved.

On 5 November 2024 the landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that the landlord was owed a week of rent and that the owner had provided better evidence since the order was made.

Suppression was allowed for the landlord and continues.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4931113 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 50, 305 Evans Bay Parade, Hataitai, Wellington

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4931113 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 50, 305 Evans Bay Parade, Hataitai, Wellington

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions