What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5011609 about?

The tribunal order states: a rehearing where “a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice

How much money was awarded in case 5011609?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5011609?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5011609?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12096081-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5011609 about?

The tribunal order states: a rehearing where “a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice

How much money was awarded in case 5011609?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5011609?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5011609?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12096081-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit [number suppressed], 100 Greys Avenue, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5011609 — Property damage

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..
The applicant need not establish an actual miscarriage of justice or substantial wrong, only that it may have occurred. However, in 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 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), s 54.

wrong or miscarriage of justice occurring. This implies obvious injustice, not merely an erroneous decision.

As noted by Judge Christiansen in the District Court appeal of Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC 1993: Rehearings are about challenges to processes and procedures and are not about what the adjudicator found or the decisions the adjudicator made.
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, 3 the District Court adopted a passage from a Court of Appeal decision that outlined 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. The landlord’s application
For the retaliatory notice findings, the landlord submits it has new evidence that should be heard at a new hearing: 4 We seek only this additional time to ensure a fair and just resolution, as we believe critical evidence was missing at the time of the original hearing. If required, we can provide documentation confirming the director's travel to Europe at the time of the hearing and presently.
For the insurance details claim, the landlord submits: 5 If the insurance certificate provided to tenant’s disadvantage, then I would understand the insurance excess to be adjusted correctly for the updates insurance documents however there was no issue where have been in a disadvantaged position with the excess and the excess being lower on the insurance documents was to tenant’s advantage in having a lower excess. The retaliatory notice
At the hearing, the landlord said that it had not thought the retaliatory notice claim was live because the landlord had withdrawn its notice. The Tribunal gave the landlord to the end of the day to submit further evidence. 3 DC North Shore, CIV-2009-044-2056, 11 December 1999. 4 The application filed on 28 April 2025. 5 Mr Orguz’s written submissions handed up at the hearing.
The landlords written submissions for hearing state: A reasonable tenant who wants to keep a good relationship with their agent or landlord should mitigate with them even asking for a mediation for this. If a notice has been withdrawn, they should understand that’s no more an issue for tenants and instead of any exemplary damage compensation claim by dragging this issue they should have asked an explanation why the notice was withdrawn. Any sensible tenant open to communication will do this, but this but tenants chose to be aggressive and taking advantage of the situation for their own benefit.
The landlord also provided the Tribunal of a copy of an email dated from an owner to the landlord dated 28 June 2025. I note, the email is not in the form of a witness statement. It is an email to the landlord. It includes comments highly critical of the tenants and of the Tribunal’s decision, which presumably were not intended to be presented to the Tribunal today. Most relevantly for this hearing, the email states: Hi Aaron With regards to the notice that was given to take back the apartment. I can confirm that we discussed this on the phone, I'm not sure of the exact date but would have been around mid Sept 2024. My son and his girlfriend who have been living in Japan were returning to NZ. Our intention was to let them use the [number suppressed]/100 apartment. As it turned out they decided to remain in Japan for a further 9 months and i advised you of that a few weeks later. They have now just come back to NZ. As you know i have 9 apartments in this building this one was discussed because it had the carpark. I was not aware of all the issues with this tenant at that time. I was aware of some complaints from the body corp and building management but hadn't connect it was this tenant. I did know about some of the air con problems that had just arisen at that time but i presumed the body Corp would sort out the air con issues because it affected everyone in the building including hotel guests, nobody expected this to be an ongoing issue. To suggest this was in any way retaliatory is just not correct. In any case, we didn't end the tenancy so how are they disadvantaged?
The owner comments, “I was not aware of all the issues with this tenant at that time” and did not connect complaints from the body corporate with the tenants. However, later in his email, the owner strongly criticises the tenants, including on one of the issues the tenants say improperly influenced the notice: Taking the dumbells from the gym, not allowing access to our apartment in an emergency when the there was a flood coming from our apartment into the neighboring apartment and 2 apartments below and saying we needed to give 48 hours' notice to the apartment is not reasonable behavior. This flooding caused considerable damage which i ended up having to pay for. This may not have been caused by the tenants, but this is not normal or reasonable behavior! constantly arguing and being abusive to hotel staff is not normal behavior!
Sometimes, a party’s representative, such as counsel, may make a calamitous error. They “fall on their sword” and admit the error, submitting that their client should not be disadvantaged by counsel’s failings. This is not such a case. There has not been a full acceptance of responsibility of that nature.
The intended evidence for a rehearing from Mr Orguz and the owner is not fresh evidence. It is evidence that could have with reasonable diligence been produced at the hearing. Most likely, in the landlord’s view, the tenant’s retaliatory notice claim had no merit, and it made no effort to seriously address the claim at the first hearing. That assessment was incorrect.
Further, in this case I do not consider the landlord’s proposed evidence to be cogent. The landlord’s email is a vague recollection and is not by contemporaneous documents despite the landlord having been given ample opportunity to gather its evidence. Again the landlord submitted its documents one month late without apology or explanation at the time of filing. That suggests the landlord paid little regard to the Tribunal’s directions, echoing the landlord disregard of the Tribunal’s case conference direction that listed the tenant’s retaliatory notice claim as the first claim to be determined, and therefore, a live issue.
I do not consider the landlord has established grounds for a rehearing in respect to the Tribunal’s decision. The landlord’s failure to provide insurance information
The landlord submitted that the Tribunal’s decision that the landlord intentionally failed to provide insurance information requested within a reasonable time was wrong.
Mr Tajali submitted that the landlord’s email of 24 October 2024 attaching a document that was not the actual insurance policy was a genuine error. However, at the last hearing in finding that the landlord had overall deliberately failed to provide the requested information, the Tribunal considered that submission at the last hearing. As mentioned above, that the Tribunal was simply wrong in its findings of fact, or its application of the law is not sufficient to establish a miscarriage of justice.
I note, the landlord did not finally provide the insurance policy until one week ago, about 10 months after the tenants requested the insurance policy, which does again call into question how seriously the landlord ever took its responsibilities in this regard.
The landlord has not established grounds for a rehearing of the insurance information claim. Conclusion
I am not satisfied that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur in respect to the Tribunal’s decisions on these claims. Therefore, the Tribunal does not have the power to order a rehearing.
It follows, the application for rehearing is dismissed. Non-publication
Non-publication of the tenants’ names and identifying details is continued for the reasons the Tribunal gave in its previous decision.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5011609 — Property damage at Unit [number suppressed], 100 Greys Avenue, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5011609 — Property damage at Unit [number suppressed], 100 Greys Avenue, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions