What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4965339 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4965339?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4965339?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4965339?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11575815-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4965339 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 4965339?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4965339?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4965339?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11575815-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4965339 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The tenant’s application for a rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place via video conference. The purpose of this hearing was to allow an opportunity for both parties to be heard in person before the Tribunal decides whether to grant the tenant’s application for a rehearing. Relevant background:
On 14 February 2025, the Tribunal issued Orders finding that the landlord had breached section 60AA of the Residential Tenancies Act 1996 (RTA) and dismissing the tenant’s claim that the landlord had issued a retaliatory notice contrary to section 54(1) of the RTA. 1
On 21 February 2025, the tenant applied for a rehearing of the decision to dismiss 1 This section was amended with effect from 30 January 2025 by the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2024 (2024 No 52). As the notice was issued prior to the 30 January 2025, the Tribunal applied section 54(1) of the RTA as it stood prior to this amendment. the claim that the landlord had issued a retaliatory notice on the grounds that there had been a substantial miscarriage of justice. Rehearings – the law:
Decisions issued by the Tribunal are binding on both parties. However, either party can apply for a rehearing or an appeal of that decision.
Section 105 of the RTA 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.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

The tenant said in his application for a rehearing that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred because the Tribunal misapplied statutory timeframes and/or that there was scope within the RTA for the time limits to be extended and the Tribunal failed to do so.
If the Tribunal misapplies or misinterprets a statutory timeframe, that is an error of law. I cannot order a rehearing where the application for the hearing is on the grounds that the Order was wrong in law.
Similarly, if the tenant believes that the Tribunal’s decision that there was no good reason to extend the timeframe was wrong, then this is an error in fact or in law and not a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.
For completeness, I note that the tenant’s claim under section 54(1) of the RTA was significantly outside the 28-day timeframe for making a claim under that section. Even if I had found there were grounds to extend the time limit, the Tribunal’s ability to extend the timeframe for making a claim under section 54(1) of the RTA is limited to a short period of time. This was emphasised in the District Court decision of Realty House Whakatane Ltd v Eschbank [2020] NZDC 16081 where the District Court said: In my view, s 54 is jurisdictional, and absent an application made within the time limit I consider that the Tenancy Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain any application for a declaration that notice is of a retaliatory nature. While I accept that the Tribunal does have the power to extend time limits, it seems to me that those provisions should not ordinarily be used in relation to consideration of issues arising under s 54, with the possible exception of a very short overrun of a day or two caused by circumstances beyond a tenant's control, such as documents being lost in the post or computer or internet outage or inaccessibility.
The tenant has failed to establish grounds for a rehearing and the application for a rehearing is dismissed.
The tenant’s name and identifying details are suppressed to preserve the order for suppression in the earlier decision.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place via video conference. The purpose of this hearing was to allow an opportunity for both parties to be heard in person before the Tribunal decides whether to grant the tenant’s application for a rehearing. Relevant background:

On 14 February 2025, the Tribunal issued Orders finding that the landlord had breached section 60AA of the Residential Tenancies Act 1996 (RTA) and dismissing the tenant’s claim that the landlord had issued a retaliatory notice contrary to section 54(1) of the RTA. 1

On 21 February 2025, the tenant applied for a rehearing of the decision to dismiss 1 This section was amended with effect from 30 January 2025 by the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2024 (2024 No 52). As the notice was issued prior to the 30 January 2025, the Tribunal applied section 54(1) of the RTA as it stood prior to this amendment. the claim that the landlord had issued a retaliatory notice on the grounds that there had been a substantial miscarriage of justice. Rehearings – the law:

Decisions issued by the Tribunal are binding on both parties. However, either party can apply for a rehearing or an appeal of that decision.

Section 105 of the RTA 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.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

The tenant said in his application for a rehearing that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred because the Tribunal misapplied statutory timeframes and/or that there was scope within the RTA for the time limits to be extended and the Tribunal failed to do so.

If the Tribunal misapplies or misinterprets a statutory timeframe, that is an error of law. I cannot order a rehearing where the application for the hearing is on the grounds that the Order was wrong in law.

Similarly, if the tenant believes that the Tribunal’s decision that there was no good reason to extend the timeframe was wrong, then this is an error in fact or in law and not a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.

For completeness, I note that the tenant’s claim under section 54(1) of the RTA was significantly outside the 28-day timeframe for making a claim under that section. Even if I had found there were grounds to extend the time limit, the Tribunal’s ability to extend the timeframe for making a claim under section 54(1) of the RTA is limited to a short period of time. This was emphasised in the District Court decision of Realty House Whakatane Ltd v Eschbank [2020] NZDC 16081 where the District Court said: In my view, s 54 is jurisdictional, and absent an application made within the time limit I consider that the Tenancy Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain any application for a declaration that notice is of a retaliatory nature. While I accept that the Tribunal does have the power to extend time limits, it seems to me that those provisions should not ordinarily be used in relation to consideration of issues arising under s 54, with the possible exception of a very short overrun of a day or two caused by circumstances beyond a tenant's control, such as documents being lost in the post or computer or internet outage or inaccessibility.

The tenant has failed to establish grounds for a rehearing and the application for a rehearing is dismissed.

The tenant’s name and identifying details are suppressed to preserve the order for suppression in the earlier decision.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4965339 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4965339 — 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