What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5028195 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants’ names and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 5028195?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5028195?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5028195?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12118109-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5028195 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants’ names and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 5028195?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5028195?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5028195?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12118109-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

880 Ridge Road, Riverhead, RD 3, Riverhead 0793 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5028195 — Rent arrears

Order

The tenants’ names and identifying details must not be published.
The landlord’s application for a rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

This is a rehearing consideration decision made on the papers. 1
The original hearing was on 9 May 2025. The Tribunal issued its decision on 4 June 2025. In summary, in the impugned decision, the Tribunal ordered the tenants to pay rent arrears and the landlord to pay compensation to the tenants for loss of amenity due to the property’s disrepair. The application
The landlord submits: 1 The applicant requested that the decision be made on the papers. On 13 June 2025, the Tribunal made directions for any further evidence or submissions to be filed by 11 July 2025. The parties did not file any further material. The landlord was intented [sic] to put the property on to the market. A screenshot of the landlord told me about his interest of putting the property onto the market has attached with this application. As the landlord has not pointed us to be the sales/listing agent, we do not have much communication about how the landlord want to advertising the property But we are contacting the landlord( currently overseas) to provide more informations of the communication between him and his listing agent to support this re-hearing application. Also we give the tenants 90-days notice on 20 Mar 2024, and the tenant should evacuate before 18th June 2025. But they failed to do so and no Tenancy Tribunal hearing has been applied by the tenants if they were not agree. Therefore they were even unlawfully occupied the property after 18th June 2025. The builder report and council request were made while the tenant occupied the property illegally. No reporting/ complain was made to us about the repairs and maintenance during the whole year 2024. We were not awearing [sic] any repairs needed. Legal principles
Section 105(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 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.
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 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.

Has the applicant proved a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice?

The applicant says that the landlord put the premises on the market. At paragraph 40 of its decision, the Tribunal found it “more probable than not that the landlord did have the premises ‘on the market’ and would have sold it for the right price even if he was not very active in marketing the premises for sale”. The Tribunal found in the landlords favour on this issue.
The applicant says the tenants occupied the premises unlawfully following the tenants remaining in the premises after the landlord gave them notice. The Tribunal accepted that was correct.
The Tribunal also accepted that the external reports came in while the tenants were squatting in the property. The Tribunal was also aware that the tenants did not complain about the premises’ disrepair. Consequently, the Tribunal did not order exemplary damages against the landlord. 2
In any event, a rehearing cannot be granted merely because the Tribunal was “simply wrong in its findings of fact, or its application of the law”.
I am not satisfied that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred in respect to the decision.
The application is dismissed. Other
Non-publication orders apply to this decision for the reasons given in the previous decision.
The stay ceases to have effect. The original order may be enforced.

Order

The tenants’ names and identifying details must not be published.
The landlord’s application for a rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

This is a rehearing consideration decision made on the papers. 1
The original hearing was on 9 May 2025. The Tribunal issued its decision on 4 June 2025. In summary, in the impugned decision, the Tribunal ordered the tenants to pay rent arrears and the landlord to pay compensation to the tenants for loss of amenity due to the property’s disrepair. The application
The landlord submits: 1 The applicant requested that the decision be made on the papers. On 13 June 2025, the Tribunal made directions for any further evidence or submissions to be filed by 11 July 2025. The parties did not file any further material. The landlord was intented [sic] to put the property on to the market. A screenshot of the landlord told me about his interest of putting the property onto the market has attached with this application. As the landlord has not pointed us to be the sales/listing agent, we do not have much communication about how the landlord want to advertising the property But we are contacting the landlord( currently overseas) to provide more informations of the communication between him and his listing agent to support this re-hearing application. Also we give the tenants 90-days notice on 20 Mar 2024, and the tenant should evacuate before 18th June 2025. But they failed to do so and no Tenancy Tribunal hearing has been applied by the tenants if they were not agree. Therefore they were even unlawfully occupied the property after 18th June 2025. The builder report and council request were made while the tenant occupied the property illegally. No reporting/ complain was made to us about the repairs and maintenance during the whole year 2024. We were not awearing [sic] any repairs needed. Legal principles
Section 105(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 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.
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 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.

Has the applicant proved a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice?

The applicant says that the landlord put the premises on the market. At paragraph 40 of its decision, the Tribunal found it “more probable than not that the landlord did have the premises ‘on the market’ and would have sold it for the right price even if he was not very active in marketing the premises for sale”. The Tribunal found in the landlords favour on this issue.
The applicant says the tenants occupied the premises unlawfully following the tenants remaining in the premises after the landlord gave them notice. The Tribunal accepted that was correct.
The Tribunal also accepted that the external reports came in while the tenants were squatting in the property. The Tribunal was also aware that the tenants did not complain about the premises’ disrepair. Consequently, the Tribunal did not order exemplary damages against the landlord. 2
In any event, a rehearing cannot be granted merely because the Tribunal was “simply wrong in its findings of fact, or its application of the law”.
I am not satisfied that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred in respect to the decision.
The application is dismissed. Other
Non-publication orders apply to this decision for the reasons given in the previous decision.
The stay ceases to have effect. The original order may be enforced.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5028195 — Rent arrears at 880 Ridge Road, Riverhead, RD 3, Riverhead 0793

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5028195 — Rent arrears at 880 Ridge Road, Riverhead, RD 3, Riverhead 0793

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the applicant proved a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has the applicant proved a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions