What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5063828 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details to

How much money was awarded in case 5063828?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5063828?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5063828?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11381338-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5063828 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details to

How much money was awarded in case 5063828?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5063828?

The primary dispute was Smoke alarms. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5063828?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11381338-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5063828 — Smoke alarms

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details to continue the name suppression previously granted.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which I conducted by phone today. Ms Mitchell represented the landlord.
On 16 December 2024 the Tribunal made an order dismissing the landlord’s application to terminate the tenancy for breaches by the tenant interfering with the smoke alarm at the premises and for 3 separate breaches amounting to alleged anti-social behaviour by the tenant
On 19 December 2024 the landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that there was no mention of the anti-social breach notices at the hearing or in the Tribunal’s decision. Legal considerations
The law as it relates to re-hearings is set out in section 105(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The Tribunal has 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.
In Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, the Court considered the meaning of ‘substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice’. The Court said: [18]....These are strong words which set a high standard. They most obviously apply, as the adjudicator pointed out, 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 by a witness. The words 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. First, the strength of the language in s105 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 an 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 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 a notice of appeal against an original decision nugatory.
As noted by Judge Christiansen in the District Court appeal of Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC 1993: In this Court’s view the Tribunal’s reasons for refusing a rehearing are correct. Rehearings are about challenges to processes and procedures and are not about what the adjudicator found or the decisions the adjudicator made.
I have quoted from these decisions to assist the landlord to understand the nature of an application for rehearing.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

The landlord’s case is based on the suggestion of an error by the Tribunal which, if established, might constitute a miscarriage of justice. Ms Mitchell states that there was no mention of the 3 anti-social breach notices at the hearing or in the Tribunal’s decision.
At the start of the hearing on 16 December 2024, I clarified with the landlord that the application referred both to general breach notices and anti-social behaviour notices for smoking, cleaning, and another alleged breach. My notes record that the landlord confirmed that the notices were all hand delivered.
So, clearly, the notices were discussed at the hearing. In fact, they were the basis on which the hearing was held.
The Tribunal does not dictate how a party presents its case. If Ms Mitchell considers she did not address the anti-social behaviour notices sufficiently, that is not a ground for a rehearing.
The suggestion that the anti-social behaviour notices were not addressed in the decision is simply incorrect. Paragraphs 2 and 9 specifically refer to the anti- social breach notices. I found that the notices for smoking could not be upheld. That was based on the evidence I heard.
There was no procedural error in this case. The parties were notified of the hearing; they attended the hearing in person; they each gave evidence and made submissions.
That the landlord does not like the result is not a ground for a rehearing. And as I have noted, the stated grounds for the rehearing application cannot stand, given the Tribunal’s consideration and discussion of the anti-social breach notices in the decision. Result
Because the landlord has failed to establish grounds for a rehearing, the application for rehearing is dismissed.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details to continue the name suppression previously granted.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which I conducted by phone today. Ms Mitchell represented the landlord.
On 16 December 2024 the Tribunal made an order dismissing the landlord’s application to terminate the tenancy for breaches by the tenant interfering with the smoke alarm at the premises and for 3 separate breaches amounting to alleged anti-social behaviour by the tenant
On 19 December 2024 the landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that there was no mention of the anti-social breach notices at the hearing or in the Tribunal’s decision. Legal considerations
The law as it relates to re-hearings is set out in section 105(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The Tribunal has 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.
In Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, the Court considered the meaning of ‘substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice’. The Court said: [18]....These are strong words which set a high standard. They most obviously apply, as the adjudicator pointed out, 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 by a witness. The words 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. First, the strength of the language in s105 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 an 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 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 a notice of appeal against an original decision nugatory.
As noted by Judge Christiansen in the District Court appeal of Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC 1993: In this Court’s view the Tribunal’s reasons for refusing a rehearing are correct. Rehearings are about challenges to processes and procedures and are not about what the adjudicator found or the decisions the adjudicator made.
I have quoted from these decisions to assist the landlord to understand the nature of an application for rehearing.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

The landlord’s case is based on the suggestion of an error by the Tribunal which, if established, might constitute a miscarriage of justice. Ms Mitchell states that there was no mention of the 3 anti-social breach notices at the hearing or in the Tribunal’s decision.
At the start of the hearing on 16 December 2024, I clarified with the landlord that the application referred both to general breach notices and anti-social behaviour notices for smoking, cleaning, and another alleged breach. My notes record that the landlord confirmed that the notices were all hand delivered.
So, clearly, the notices were discussed at the hearing. In fact, they were the basis on which the hearing was held.
The Tribunal does not dictate how a party presents its case. If Ms Mitchell considers she did not address the anti-social behaviour notices sufficiently, that is not a ground for a rehearing.
The suggestion that the anti-social behaviour notices were not addressed in the decision is simply incorrect. Paragraphs 2 and 9 specifically refer to the anti- social breach notices. I found that the notices for smoking could not be upheld. That was based on the evidence I heard.
There was no procedural error in this case. The parties were notified of the hearing; they attended the hearing in person; they each gave evidence and made submissions.
That the landlord does not like the result is not a ground for a rehearing. And as I have noted, the stated grounds for the rehearing application cannot stand, given the Tribunal’s consideration and discussion of the anti-social breach notices in the decision. Result
Because the landlord has failed to establish grounds for a rehearing, the application for rehearing is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5063828 — Smoke alarms

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5063828 — Smoke alarms

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