What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4946573 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4946573?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4946573?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4946573?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11047068-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4946573 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4946573?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4946573?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4946573?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11047068-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

46 Mitchell Street, Aramoho, Whanganui 4500 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4946573 — Rent arrears

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 4 November 2024 the Tribunal made an order for compensation and exemplary damages.
On 5 November 2024 the landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that “Rent arrears and bath cleaning cost were under estimated. New evidences for sections tidying up, rubbishes dumping and bath cleaning costs.”
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?

For the following reasons the landlord has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
The landlord is unhappy with the Tribunal’s decision. This is not a ground for a rehearing.
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: “[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.”
The Tribunal will not grant a re-hearing simply because a party has “additional” evidence (of which there is a potentially limitless supply), but will consider a rehearing if a party has “new” evidence, meaning evidence that was not reasonably available at the time of the original hearing. The evidence must be fresh, credible and it must be cogent.
Evidence is not regarded as fresh if it could with reasonable diligence have been produced at the trial. When the evidence is not fresh it should not be admitted unless the circumstances are exceptional and the grounds compelling.
An applicant has to show that reasonable diligence was used to produce all relevant evidence at the hearing, and there must be an explanation as to why the new evidence only came to light after the hearing.
In Heath v Wood (Wellington District Court, Minute No. 2, CIV-2009-085-040, 28 April 2009) it was emphasised the onus was on the applicant “to attend the original hearing fully equipped to deal with the issues”. Further, the Judge noted in that decision that “a rehearing is not intended to provide an opportunity for a disappointed party to put further information before the tribunal”.
I am not persuaded that the evidence the landlord wishes to produce could not have been made available for the original hearing, nor are the circumstances exceptional nor the grounds compelling. I do not therefore need to consider whether the new evidence passes the tests of credibility and cogency.
The landlord’s rehearing application on the basis that the Tribunal’s calculations were incorrect and that the landlord has new evidence is dismissed.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 4 November 2024 the Tribunal made an order for compensation and exemplary damages.
On 5 November 2024 the landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that “Rent arrears and bath cleaning cost were under estimated. New evidences for sections tidying up, rubbishes dumping and bath cleaning costs.”
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?

For the following reasons the landlord has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
The landlord is unhappy with the Tribunal’s decision. This is not a ground for a rehearing.
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: “[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.”
The Tribunal will not grant a re-hearing simply because a party has “additional” evidence (of which there is a potentially limitless supply), but will consider a rehearing if a party has “new” evidence, meaning evidence that was not reasonably available at the time of the original hearing. The evidence must be fresh, credible and it must be cogent.
Evidence is not regarded as fresh if it could with reasonable diligence have been produced at the trial. When the evidence is not fresh it should not be admitted unless the circumstances are exceptional and the grounds compelling.
An applicant has to show that reasonable diligence was used to produce all relevant evidence at the hearing, and there must be an explanation as to why the new evidence only came to light after the hearing.
In Heath v Wood (Wellington District Court, Minute No. 2, CIV-2009-085-040, 28 April 2009) it was emphasised the onus was on the applicant “to attend the original hearing fully equipped to deal with the issues”. Further, the Judge noted in that decision that “a rehearing is not intended to provide an opportunity for a disappointed party to put further information before the tribunal”.
I am not persuaded that the evidence the landlord wishes to produce could not have been made available for the original hearing, nor are the circumstances exceptional nor the grounds compelling. I do not therefore need to consider whether the new evidence passes the tests of credibility and cogency.
The landlord’s rehearing application on the basis that the Tribunal’s calculations were incorrect and that the landlord has new evidence is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4946573 — Rent arrears at 46 Mitchell Street, Aramoho, Whanganui 4500

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4946573 — Rent arrears at 46 Mitchell Street, Aramoho, Whanganui 4500

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