What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4939763 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 4939763?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4939763?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4939763?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11426215-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4939763 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 4939763?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4939763?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4939763?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11426215-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4939763 — Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant attended by phone from Japan, the landlords in person.
On 6 December 2024, the Tribunal made an order dismissing the tenant’s application and awarding the landlord the bond and the balance of rent arrears and the filing fee ($300.34).
On 13 December 2024, the tenant applied for a rehearing. In an email dated 16 December 2024 to the registry she confirmed that the only aspect of the order she challenged was the Tribunal’s decision concerning alleged unlawful entries and ‘maintenance for rubbish bin’. She did not mention any issue about the rubbish bin today.
The landlords oppose the application. The law on rehearings
The law as it relates to re-hearings is set out in section 105(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The Tribunal has 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.
In Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, the Court considered the meaning of ‘substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice’. The Court said: [18]....These are strong words which set a high standard. They most obviously apply, as the adjudicator pointed out, 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 by a witness. The words 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. First, the strength of the language in s105 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 an 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 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 a 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.
I have quoted from these decisions to assist the tenant (and the landlord) to understand the nature of an application for rehearing.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

The tenant’s case is based on her view that the Tribunal did not specifically mention every piece of evidence she produced. She said the evidence was discussed but not then mentioned in the decision.
The Tribunal is not required to address every piece of evidence presented. It hears the oral evidence and assesses the documentary evidence and reaches a decision. That each item of evidence is not addressed is not a flaw of process or procedure.
Nor am I persuaded that there is any new evidence available now that was not available at the time of the hearing that would have affected the Tribunal’s decision.
The adjudicator addressed the issue of unlawful entries by the landlord and builder in some detail in his decision. The Tribunal said there might be a technical breach but found that in the overall circumstances there was no basis for either compensation or exemplary damages.
That the Tribunal can make orders does not always mean that it will or should. The Tribunal considered this issue and made a decision based on the evidence it heard. The tenant’s submission today that ‘all evidence was ignored’ is not correct.
The tenant is simply unhappy with the decision. That is not a ground for a rehearing, but for an appeal.
The tenant said her application for the bond was not included in the Tribunal’s order; it was assigned a separate number.
This point is moot. The Tribunal awarded the bond to the landlord to be applied to rent arrears. The omission of the application number, even if correct, is simply an administrative matter; it did not affect the outcome.
The tenant said she did not accept that there were rent arrears, and the landlord included false information in the bond refund form. First, the rent issue was not part of the rehearing application. The tenant was very clear about that. But even if it was, the Tribunal fully addressed the rent arrears claim in its decision, made a finding, and ordered the bond be paid to the landlord towards the rent owed.
The tenant has not established any grounds to challenge the rent arrears finding.
Second, even if the landlord included wrong information in the bond refund form, the Tribunal’s order superseded that. The bond has been paid to the landlord as the Tribunal directed it be.
The tenant said she did not understand the interpreter at the first hearing and the landlord spoke too quickly. The interpreter then was the same as the interpreter today. I observed no communication issues at all.
The tenant said the adjudicator’s decision was not fair. She said that a Community Law Centre lawyer had told her that the adjudicator made a mistake by not accepting her evidence.
I find no grounds to conclude that the adjudicator did not accept evidence. His role was to assess the evidence presented and that is what he did. As I have noted he was not required to refer to each piece of evidence presented.
This is a case where the tenant does not accept the Tribunal’s findings which she considers were unfair. But she has not established an objective flaw in the Tribunal’s process or procedure. Both parties attended the hearing and gave evidence and had the opportunity to present documentary evidence. That the tenant does not accept the adjudicator’s findings is not a ground for a rehearing. Result
For these reasons, the application for rehearing is dismissed.
I have continued the name suppression granted to the landlord in the previous order.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. The tenant attended by phone from Japan, the landlords in person.
On 6 December 2024, the Tribunal made an order dismissing the tenant’s application and awarding the landlord the bond and the balance of rent arrears and the filing fee ($300.34).
On 13 December 2024, the tenant applied for a rehearing. In an email dated 16 December 2024 to the registry she confirmed that the only aspect of the order she challenged was the Tribunal’s decision concerning alleged unlawful entries and ‘maintenance for rubbish bin’. She did not mention any issue about the rubbish bin today.
The landlords oppose the application. The law on rehearings
The law as it relates to re-hearings is set out in section 105(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The Tribunal has 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.
In Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, the Court considered the meaning of ‘substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice’. The Court said: [18]....These are strong words which set a high standard. They most obviously apply, as the adjudicator pointed out, 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 by a witness. The words 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. First, the strength of the language in s105 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 an 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 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 a 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.
I have quoted from these decisions to assist the tenant (and the landlord) to understand the nature of an application for rehearing.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

The tenant’s case is based on her view that the Tribunal did not specifically mention every piece of evidence she produced. She said the evidence was discussed but not then mentioned in the decision.
The Tribunal is not required to address every piece of evidence presented. It hears the oral evidence and assesses the documentary evidence and reaches a decision. That each item of evidence is not addressed is not a flaw of process or procedure.
Nor am I persuaded that there is any new evidence available now that was not available at the time of the hearing that would have affected the Tribunal’s decision.
The adjudicator addressed the issue of unlawful entries by the landlord and builder in some detail in his decision. The Tribunal said there might be a technical breach but found that in the overall circumstances there was no basis for either compensation or exemplary damages.
That the Tribunal can make orders does not always mean that it will or should. The Tribunal considered this issue and made a decision based on the evidence it heard. The tenant’s submission today that ‘all evidence was ignored’ is not correct.
The tenant is simply unhappy with the decision. That is not a ground for a rehearing, but for an appeal.
The tenant said her application for the bond was not included in the Tribunal’s order; it was assigned a separate number.
This point is moot. The Tribunal awarded the bond to the landlord to be applied to rent arrears. The omission of the application number, even if correct, is simply an administrative matter; it did not affect the outcome.
The tenant said she did not accept that there were rent arrears, and the landlord included false information in the bond refund form. First, the rent issue was not part of the rehearing application. The tenant was very clear about that. But even if it was, the Tribunal fully addressed the rent arrears claim in its decision, made a finding, and ordered the bond be paid to the landlord towards the rent owed.
The tenant has not established any grounds to challenge the rent arrears finding.
Second, even if the landlord included wrong information in the bond refund form, the Tribunal’s order superseded that. The bond has been paid to the landlord as the Tribunal directed it be.
The tenant said she did not understand the interpreter at the first hearing and the landlord spoke too quickly. The interpreter then was the same as the interpreter today. I observed no communication issues at all.
The tenant said the adjudicator’s decision was not fair. She said that a Community Law Centre lawyer had told her that the adjudicator made a mistake by not accepting her evidence.
I find no grounds to conclude that the adjudicator did not accept evidence. His role was to assess the evidence presented and that is what he did. As I have noted he was not required to refer to each piece of evidence presented.
This is a case where the tenant does not accept the Tribunal’s findings which she considers were unfair. But she has not established an objective flaw in the Tribunal’s process or procedure. Both parties attended the hearing and gave evidence and had the opportunity to present documentary evidence. That the tenant does not accept the adjudicator’s findings is not a ground for a rehearing. Result
For these reasons, the application for rehearing is dismissed.
I have continued the name suppression granted to the landlord in the previous order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4939763 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4939763 — Rent arrears

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