What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5053508 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5053508?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5053508?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5053508?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11706508-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5053508 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5053508?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5053508?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5053508?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11706508-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 1, 156 Halsey Drive, Lynfield, Auckland 1042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5053508 — Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

BACKGROUND

On 5 November 2024, a notice of hearing was sent to the landlord advising that the tenant had filed an application for the following matters: a. Refund of the bond; b. Failure to lodge the bond; c. Exemplary damages; and d. Application fee.
The notice of hearing stated that a video hearing was scheduled for 10 December 2024.
On Thursday 5 December 2024 and Friday 6 December 2024, the landlord sent various emails to the Registry about alleged damage the tenant had caused to the property during the tenancy. This information was uploaded to the file on Monday 9 December 2024, one day before the hearing.
Both parties attended the video hearing on 10 December 2024. The landlord attempted to make oral submissions seeking compensation for damage, which I declined to hear, because the landlord had not filed an application raising these claims. There was clearly a dispute between the parties about the landlord’s claim for compensation for damage.
The landlord requested an adjournment, stating that they did not know they needed to file their own application. The tenant opposed the landlord’s request for an adjournment. I declined to grant an adjournment for the following reasons: a. The notice of hearing sent to the landlord on 5 November 2024 and clearly stated that if the landlord wanted the Tribunal to consider claims that were not included in the notice of hearing, they needed to file their own application. b. The landlord was assisted by a property manager, Mark Price, who helped manage this tenancy and appeared with the landlord on 10 December 2024. Mr Price appeared knowledgeable about this tenancy and the Tribunal process. c. The landlord had 4 weeks to prepare for the hearing on 10 December 2024 and had left it until as late as two working days before the hearing to email the Registry alerting them to their potential claims. d. The hearing was scheduled towards the end of the year and there was likely to be a delay in setting a future date due to the Christmas and New Year break.
The hearing proceeded on 10 December 2024 and I issued an order on 12 December 2024.
On 28 January 2025, the landlord filed an application for a rehearing and a stay of proceedings. In an order dated 3 February 2025, I declined the landlord’s request for a stay of proceedings and directed that the matter be set down for consideration regarding the landlord’s request for a rehearing.
On 8 April 2025, a video hearing was held to consider the landlord’s request for a rehearing. The tenant appeared. The landlord did not appear however their property manager, Mark Price appeared. Mr Price advised the Tribunal that the landlord had not advised him of the hearing. Mr Price was caught by surprise by the Tribunal’s phone-call however confirmed that he had instructions from the landlord to appear on behalf of the landlord at the hearing. The hearing proceeded with the landlord being represented by Mr Price.
The main grounds advanced by Mr Price in support of why a rehearing should be granted were: a. The landlord is a very busy person who did not have sufficient time to prepare for the first hearing or file their own cross-application. b. The landlord is an experienced landlord with more than one rental property however, they are not experienced with the procedure of the Tribunal. c. This was the first property that Mr Price had managed and his relationship with the landlord is not a typical property manager and landlord relationship. The landlord looks after the financial side of things and Mr Price manages other aspects of the tenancy, such as finding a suitable tenant. d. The landlord tends to adopt an informal approach to managing their tenancies. He believed an agreement had been reached between himself and the tenant regarding compensation to the landlord for damage and a refund of the bond.

THE LAW

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”.
The person applying for a rehearing 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.”
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 (DC North Shore, CIV-2009-044-2056, 11 December 1999), the District Court quoted an extract from the Court of Appeal outlining 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 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.

ANALYSIS

None of the reasons advanced by the landlord as to why a rehearing should be granted constitute a procedural error that has led to a miscarriage of justice or substantial wrong. Both parties received the notice of hearing sent on 5 November 2024 and appeared at the hearing on 10 December 2024. Nothing went wrong with the Tribunal’s process in the lead up to the hearing, such as the notice of hearing not being sent to the correct email address.
The thrust of the landlord’s submission about why a rehearing should be granted are that the Tribunal was wrong to decline to hear the landlord’s claim for compensation for damage orally at the hearing or grant an adjournment. The landlord claims that some allowance should have been made for the fact that they are a busy person with limited time to prepare for the hearing and are not familiar with the Tribunal process.
Regarding the landlord’s claim that they are unfamiliar with the Tribunal process, I note that the landlord has appeared before the Tribunal before on 10 October 2019. This hearing concerned an application filed by the landlord for rent arrears in respect of a different property. The landlord has appeared before the Tribunal before and has more than one rental property. Therefore, I have some reservations about the lack of experience and familiarity they claim to possess.
I appreciate that the landlord has multiple responsibilities and that it can be difficult to balance work and family life with being a landlord. The fact that landlords and tenants who find themselves before the Tribunal are busy with employment and family responsibilities is not unusual. In this case, the landlord had four weeks from the date the notice of hearing was sent to prepare, which is not an unreasonably short amount of time. The landlord did not request an adjournment promptly upon receiving the notice of hearing, nor did they point to any unusual circumstances such as a death in the family or serious health issues that would have prohibited them from being able to adequately prepare. I also note that the landlord had the assistance of their property manager to help prepare for the hearing.
The submission by the landlord that it was wrong for the Tribunal to not allow them to submit their claim for compensation orally at the hearing or grant an adjournment reflects a disagreement with the substance of the Tribunal’s decision. The District Court has held in Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC 1993 that disagreement with the Tribunal’s decision is not a ground for rehearing: ...Rehearings are about challenges to the processes and procedures and are not about what the adjudicator found or the decisions the adjudicator made.
Where a party disagrees with the Tribunal’s decision, the appropriate remedy is to file an appeal with the District Court within the relevant timeframe, rather than seek a rehearing.
The landlord did not submit any fresh evidence that was not reasonably available to them at the first hearing that would provide a defence to the tenant’s claims.
The landlord has not proven on the balance of probabilities that a miscarriage of justice or substantial wrong may have occurred.
The application for a rehearing is dismissed.
It still remains available to the landlord to file their own application for compensation for damage with the Tribunal if they wish.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5053508 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 156 Halsey Drive, Lynfield, Auckland 1042

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5053508 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 156 Halsey Drive, Lynfield, Auckland 1042

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

THE LAW

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

THE LAW

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions