What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5068448 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 5068448?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5068448?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5068448?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12319916-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5068448 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 5068448?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5068448?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5068448?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12319916-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5068448 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by telephone. Both parties attended. Ms Eder represented the landlord.

On 14 July 2025 the Tribunal made an order dismissing the tenant’s application.

On 22 July 2025 the tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that the Tribunal make various errors of law and of fact.

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.

There are no grounds for a rehearing in this case. The grounds that the tenant relies on relate to errors of law or the application of the law and errors or omissions relating to factual findings. These are all points that should be pursued by way of an appeal. They do not entitle the tenant to a rehearing. I note that the tenant has filed an appeal to the District Court.

At the rehearing hearing, the tenant asserted that the landlord had mislead the Tribunal by denying that it had knowledge of certain facts relating to the actions of the other tenant about whose behaviour she had complained. I don’t accept that the Tribunal made any error in terms of its understanding of the landlord’s state of knowledge, but even if it did, they were not material to the decision. They would also be points to be made on appeal, not grounds for a rehearing.

The tenant also invited the Tribunal to grant a rehearing to consider awarding compensation for the non-physical harm she suffered due to the other tenant’s actions. To be clear, the Tribunal accepted that awarding such compensation was legally possible, but because the Tribunal found that the landlord was not in breach of the applicable obligation, there could be no award of compensation.

The tenant’s name and identifying details are suppressed for the same reasons given in the substantive order.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by telephone. Both parties attended. Ms Eder represented the landlord.

On 14 July 2025 the Tribunal made an order dismissing the tenant’s application.

On 22 July 2025 the tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that the Tribunal make various errors of law and of fact.

The tenant’s name and identifying details are suppressed for the same reasons given in the substantive order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5068448 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5068448 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions