What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5052870 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5052870?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5052870?

The primary dispute was Harassment. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5052870?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11626113-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5052870 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5052870?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5052870?

The primary dispute was Harassment. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5052870?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11626113-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5052870 — Harassment

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 11 February 2025 the Tribunal made an order dismissing the applicant’s claim against the landlord for compensation and exemplary damages.
The applicant has applied for a rehearing.
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. Backgound
The background of this matter is that the applicant was a co-tenant with others. Disputes arose between the applicant tenant and her co-tenants which led to a first set of co-tenants moving out and assigning their rights in the lease. Similar disputes arose with the new co-tenants. The new co-tenants assigned the lease to themselves with the applicant removed and the landlord accepted the assignment. The applicant brought an application for: a. reinstatement on the lease (abandoned at the hearing); b. damages for harassment by the landlord for failing to protect her quiet enjoyment from being interfered with by the other tenants; and c. unlawful termination.
I found that the landlord had not harassed the tenant. I found that while the assignment by the co-tenants was unlawful, the landlord’s acceptance of the assignment was not, and that even had it been the circumstances would not have warranted the compensation and exemplary damages sought by the tenant. Grounds for rehearing
The applicant argued for a rehearing on the grounds of: a. bias; b. that the decision was inconsistent in finding that the co-tenants’ assignment was unlawful, but the landlord’s acceptance was lawful; c. the decision that the landlord’s acceptance of the assignment of the lease was lawful has created a miscarriage of justice as it was effectively an unlawful termination in breach of s60AA; d. that the decision failed to consider that the landlord did not passively accept the assignment but intentionally misused the process to evict the applicant; and e. that the applicant should be allowed a rehearing to adduce additional evidence to counter-act the co-tenants’ written statements; and f. in her application the applicant has argued that the hearing process did not take account of her trauma, and a less adversarial, trauma informed process should have been used. Bias
The applicant has alleged that my treatment and weighting of the evidence was biased against her. This allegation relates to a substantive issue, and is not suitable for a grant of rehearing.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons the applicant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
Considering the first three grounds for rehearing, in essence my finding was that the assignment of the lease and the acceptance of that assignment were legally separate actions carried out by different parties. On this basis: a. no inconsistency arises in finding that an assignment is unlawful but no reasonable grounds for rejecting the assignment as there are different legal tests and different parties involved in each step. b. The problem with the applicant’s formulation of the assignment is that it ignores that the assignment was carried out by the co-tenants not the landlord. The landlord was involved in the discussions with tenancy services as were the co-tenants, but the act of assignment sat with the co-tenants as the holder of the rights assigned. c. The issue of passivity or activity of a landlord in accepting the assignment is not part of the formulation that the landlord cannot reasonably refuse an assignment.
I do not find that these issues demonstrate that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has arisen. Moreover, these issues relate to substantive findings and are not suitable grounds to allow the grant of a rehearing. New evidence
The evidence the applicant wishes to rely upon are: a. video evidence of alleged harassment b. statements from friends and current flatmates in support of her character; and c. statements from friends about events referred to by the co-tenants in statements supplied by the landlord.
She says that the co-tenants’ statements were only received 3 days prior to the hearing and she had no opportunity respond.
The issues are whether; a. this evidence is relevant to the issues in my order, and b. the evidence was reasonably available at the hearing.
I do not consider that the statements would have been relevant to my findings. They are rebuttal to the written statements of the co-tenants and add little beyond the applicant’s own statements made during the hearing. The statements referred to at [12]b. refer to events which occurred in September and October 2024, by which time the conflicts between the applicant and her co-tenants were well developed. In the order I made no findings of fault or attribution of blame between the applicant and the co-tenants. The focus was on the actions of the landlord.
The applicant says she was traumatised by the receipt of the co-tenants’ statements and could not respond in the timeframe. I note the material she supplied with her application included communications which allege bullying and adverse behaviour from the co-tenants towards her. That the co-tenants would wish to respond to this material and that the landlord would include such material in his response to the claims made against him was to be expected. I note that during the hearing the applicant made no request for a pause or adjournment and the presentation of her material was measured and calm.
It is up to an applicant to prove their case. The video evidence referred to at [12]a. was reasonably available at the time of the hearing. The statements referred to at [12]b. could have been arranged and produced and it was reasonably foreseeable that such evidence could be necessary. An applicant bears the responsibility of proving their case and the rehearing process should not be used to allow a party to perfect a case.
The evidence was both reasonably available and would not have affected the outcome of the hearing. This is not a ground which justifies the grant of a rehearing. The mode of hearing
The applicant is neurodiverse and is the survivor of trauma. While not referred to during the hearing, material filed with the rehearing application argues that a less adversarial, trauma informed process should have been used.
The Tribunal application process allows parties to use mediation, which is a less confronting process than a substantive hearting. It does not appear that this option was taken by the applicant when she made her application.
During the hearing the applicant presented her case in a calm, clear, and well organised manner. She responded in a considered, well-organised manner to my questions and to points raised by the landlord. It appeared to me that she understood the material and the legal issues and was not acting under any apparent disability or impairment. She was unaffected by the pressures of the hearing process. Her neurodiverse and survivor status did not present any material disability or other reason which justifies the grant of a rehearing.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 11 February 2025 the Tribunal made an order dismissing the applicant’s claim against the landlord for compensation and exemplary damages.
The applicant has applied for a rehearing.
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. Backgound
The background of this matter is that the applicant was a co-tenant with others. Disputes arose between the applicant tenant and her co-tenants which led to a first set of co-tenants moving out and assigning their rights in the lease. Similar disputes arose with the new co-tenants. The new co-tenants assigned the lease to themselves with the applicant removed and the landlord accepted the assignment. The applicant brought an application for: a. reinstatement on the lease (abandoned at the hearing); b. damages for harassment by the landlord for failing to protect her quiet enjoyment from being interfered with by the other tenants; and c. unlawful termination.
I found that the landlord had not harassed the tenant. I found that while the assignment by the co-tenants was unlawful, the landlord’s acceptance of the assignment was not, and that even had it been the circumstances would not have warranted the compensation and exemplary damages sought by the tenant. Grounds for rehearing
The applicant argued for a rehearing on the grounds of: a. bias; b. that the decision was inconsistent in finding that the co-tenants’ assignment was unlawful, but the landlord’s acceptance was lawful; c. the decision that the landlord’s acceptance of the assignment of the lease was lawful has created a miscarriage of justice as it was effectively an unlawful termination in breach of s60AA; d. that the decision failed to consider that the landlord did not passively accept the assignment but intentionally misused the process to evict the applicant; and e. that the applicant should be allowed a rehearing to adduce additional evidence to counter-act the co-tenants’ written statements; and f. in her application the applicant has argued that the hearing process did not take account of her trauma, and a less adversarial, trauma informed process should have been used. Bias
The applicant has alleged that my treatment and weighting of the evidence was biased against her. This allegation relates to a substantive issue, and is not suitable for a grant of rehearing.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons the applicant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
Considering the first three grounds for rehearing, in essence my finding was that the assignment of the lease and the acceptance of that assignment were legally separate actions carried out by different parties. On this basis: a. no inconsistency arises in finding that an assignment is unlawful but no reasonable grounds for rejecting the assignment as there are different legal tests and different parties involved in each step. b. The problem with the applicant’s formulation of the assignment is that it ignores that the assignment was carried out by the co-tenants not the landlord. The landlord was involved in the discussions with tenancy services as were the co-tenants, but the act of assignment sat with the co-tenants as the holder of the rights assigned. c. The issue of passivity or activity of a landlord in accepting the assignment is not part of the formulation that the landlord cannot reasonably refuse an assignment.
I do not find that these issues demonstrate that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has arisen. Moreover, these issues relate to substantive findings and are not suitable grounds to allow the grant of a rehearing. New evidence
The evidence the applicant wishes to rely upon are: a. video evidence of alleged harassment b. statements from friends and current flatmates in support of her character; and c. statements from friends about events referred to by the co-tenants in statements supplied by the landlord.
She says that the co-tenants’ statements were only received 3 days prior to the hearing and she had no opportunity respond.
The issues are whether; a. this evidence is relevant to the issues in my order, and b. the evidence was reasonably available at the hearing.
I do not consider that the statements would have been relevant to my findings. They are rebuttal to the written statements of the co-tenants and add little beyond the applicant’s own statements made during the hearing. The statements referred to at [12]b. refer to events which occurred in September and October 2024, by which time the conflicts between the applicant and her co-tenants were well developed. In the order I made no findings of fault or attribution of blame between the applicant and the co-tenants. The focus was on the actions of the landlord.
The applicant says she was traumatised by the receipt of the co-tenants’ statements and could not respond in the timeframe. I note the material she supplied with her application included communications which allege bullying and adverse behaviour from the co-tenants towards her. That the co-tenants would wish to respond to this material and that the landlord would include such material in his response to the claims made against him was to be expected. I note that during the hearing the applicant made no request for a pause or adjournment and the presentation of her material was measured and calm.
It is up to an applicant to prove their case. The video evidence referred to at [12]a. was reasonably available at the time of the hearing. The statements referred to at [12]b. could have been arranged and produced and it was reasonably foreseeable that such evidence could be necessary. An applicant bears the responsibility of proving their case and the rehearing process should not be used to allow a party to perfect a case.
The evidence was both reasonably available and would not have affected the outcome of the hearing. This is not a ground which justifies the grant of a rehearing. The mode of hearing
The applicant is neurodiverse and is the survivor of trauma. While not referred to during the hearing, material filed with the rehearing application argues that a less adversarial, trauma informed process should have been used.
The Tribunal application process allows parties to use mediation, which is a less confronting process than a substantive hearting. It does not appear that this option was taken by the applicant when she made her application.
During the hearing the applicant presented her case in a calm, clear, and well organised manner. She responded in a considered, well-organised manner to my questions and to points raised by the landlord. It appeared to me that she understood the material and the legal issues and was not acting under any apparent disability or impairment. She was unaffected by the pressures of the hearing process. Her neurodiverse and survivor status did not present any material disability or other reason which justifies the grant of a rehearing.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5052870 — Harassment

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5052870 — Harassment

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