What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4998248 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4998248?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4998248?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4998248?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11587849-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4998248 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4998248?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4998248?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4998248?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11587849-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4998248 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application for rehearing is granted.
An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of [The tenant/s] name and identifying details.
The stay of the order dated 13 February 2025 is lifted and the order is enforceable.

Reasons

[The tenant/s] attended the hearing by phone.
The other tenants did not attend the hearing.
The landlord did not attend the hearing, however, gave reasons for her non- attendance.
I am satisfied that all parties were served with the notice of hearing. The hearing proceeded in the absence of the other parties.
These proceedings relate to two applications.
Application number 4987788 relates to an application by two of the three tenants to reduce a fixed term tenancy. The application was successful at the first hearing and [The tenant/s] was granted name suppression in that matter.
Application number 4998248 relates to the landlord’s application for compensation following the end of the tenancy. This matter was determined at a second hearing and [The tenant/s] indicated he did not seek name suppression.
[The tenant/s] has applied for a rehearing of the Tribunal order dated 13 February 2025 (Application number 4998248) as he now seeks name suppression and did not appreciate the consequences of not seeking it at the second hearing in these proceedings. He does not seek a rehearing in respect to any other matter.
For the reasons set out below, I am satisfied that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred and a rehearing is granted. 1
As I directed in the order setting this matter down for consideration, I have heard and determined the substantive issue of suppression in this order. Rehearing’s to be heard by same adjudicator.
It is the usual practice of the Tenancy Tribunal that the application for rehearing is normally considered by the original adjudicator, being the adjudicator who made the decision which is sought to be reheard. I note that approach has been supported by the District Court.
In the decision of Goston v Jamieson, the District Court confirmed that: It is nothing extraordinary (indeed it is perfectly ordinary) for an adjudicator or Judge to hear a rehearing application in respect of a decision he or she has earlier given... it would be a mistake for a disappointed party to conclude that because a decision gives precedence to the points made by, and the evidence of, the successful party, their own points of evidence have been ignored. Any adjudicator or Judge must make decisions as to what is persuasively relevant. It is a virtual inevitability that the content of his or her decision or judgement will show emphasis accordingly.
Similarly in the District Court decision of Dennis Fetherston & Anna Fetherston v Yunji Lee, 2 the Court observed that the: “Adjudicator who hears the case initially, entitled to hear any rehearing application. It would be “normal practice” for an adjudicator to do so.” 1 See section 105 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 2 (DC. North Shore, CIV-2012-044-001127, 7 May 2013), Grounds for rehearing
Section 105 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 relates to rehearing. 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 in the District Court appeal of Loh v Puri 3 : In this Court’s view the Tribunal’s reasons for refusing a rehearing are correct. Rehearing’s are about challenges to processes and procedures and are not about what the adjudicator found or the decisions the adjudicator made. 3 [2019] NZDC 1993 Judge Christiansen Outcome
[The tenant/s] seeks a rehearing of the application for name suppression.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 4
The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. 5
In this case the tenant was granted name suppression in the first order in the proceedings.
I am satisfied that the tenant might not have appreciated the consequences of not seeking name suppression, this in itself is not grounds to grant a rehearing.
However, it is relevant that the tenant was granted name suppression in the original order therefore this should apply to the second order. The first order and the subsequent order have the tenant’s and the landlord’s cross application numbers recorded on both, therefore both orders should have the tenant’s name suppressed.
I therefore am satisfied that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred and grant the rehearing application and grant the tenant name suppression as sought.

Reasons

[The tenant/s] attended the hearing by phone.

The other tenants did not attend the hearing.

The landlord did not attend the hearing, however, gave reasons for her non- attendance.

I am satisfied that all parties were served with the notice of hearing. The hearing proceeded in the absence of the other parties.

These proceedings relate to two applications.

Application number 4987788 relates to an application by two of the three tenants to reduce a fixed term tenancy. The application was successful at the first hearing and [The tenant/s] was granted name suppression in that matter.

Application number 4998248 relates to the landlord’s application for compensation following the end of the tenancy. This matter was determined at a second hearing and [The tenant/s] indicated he did not seek name suppression.

[The tenant/s] has applied for a rehearing of the Tribunal order dated 13 February 2025 (Application number 4998248) as he now seeks name suppression and did not appreciate the consequences of not seeking it at the second hearing in these proceedings. He does not seek a rehearing in respect to any other matter.

For the reasons set out below, I am satisfied that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred and a rehearing is granted. 1

As I directed in the order setting this matter down for consideration, I have heard and determined the substantive issue of suppression in this order. Rehearing’s to be heard by same adjudicator.

It is the usual practice of the Tenancy Tribunal that the application for rehearing is normally considered by the original adjudicator, being the adjudicator who made the decision which is sought to be reheard. I note that approach has been supported by the District Court.

In the decision of Goston v Jamieson, the District Court confirmed that: It is nothing extraordinary (indeed it is perfectly ordinary) for an adjudicator or Judge to hear a rehearing application in respect of a decision he or she has earlier given... it would be a mistake for a disappointed party to conclude that because a decision gives precedence to the points made by, and the evidence of, the successful party, their own points of evidence have been ignored. Any adjudicator or Judge must make decisions as to what is persuasively relevant. It is a virtual inevitability that the content of his or her decision or judgement will show emphasis accordingly.

Similarly in the District Court decision of Dennis Fetherston & Anna Fetherston v Yunji Lee, 2 the Court observed that the: “Adjudicator who hears the case initially, entitled to hear any rehearing application. It would be “normal practice” for an adjudicator to do so.” 1 See section 105 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 2 (DC. North Shore, CIV-2012-044-001127, 7 May 2013), Grounds for rehearing

Section 105 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 relates to rehearing. 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 in the District Court appeal of Loh v Puri 3 : In this Court’s view the Tribunal’s reasons for refusing a rehearing are correct. Rehearing’s are about challenges to processes and procedures and are not about what the adjudicator found or the decisions the adjudicator made. 3 [2019] NZDC 1993 Judge Christiansen Outcome

[The tenant/s] seeks a rehearing of the application for name suppression.

The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 4

The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying particulars of any witness or party not be published. 5

In this case the tenant was granted name suppression in the first order in the proceedings.

I am satisfied that the tenant might not have appreciated the consequences of not seeking name suppression, this in itself is not grounds to grant a rehearing.

However, it is relevant that the tenant was granted name suppression in the original order therefore this should apply to the second order. The first order and the subsequent order have the tenant’s and the landlord’s cross application numbers recorded on both, therefore both orders should have the tenant’s name suppressed.

I therefore am satisfied that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred and grant the rehearing application and grant the tenant name suppression as sought.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4998248 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4998248 — Tenancy dispute

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