What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5072949 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5072949?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5072949?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5072949?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12188901-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5072949 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5072949?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5072949?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5072949?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12188901-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

28 Kokiri Street, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5072949 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 22/5/2025 the Tribunal made an order dismissing the landlord’s claims as the landlord had not attended the hearing. The order noted that the landlord had not joined the video meeting scheduled, had not answered calls to either cell phone number provided, or the number provided by the receptionist at the landlord’s office when she was also contacted (all calls going to voice mail).
On 27 May 2025, the applicant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that the property manager who completed the application had left the company and her email account had been deactivated. The new property manager had not received the notification of the hearing.
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 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.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons the applicant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
The property manager who completed the application form did not list her phone number as a contact number on the application form, she completed on 21/12/202, she listed an alternative number, which is the same number as the Tribunal used both on 22 May and again today to contact the representative for the applicant. His email address is also recorded on the application form as is the replacement property manager’s email.
It is reasonable to assume that the departing property manager was aware she was leaving the company soon after this and therefore would not be representing the landlord at the time of the hearing. She provided clear alternatives, which the order records were all used to no avail when the applicant failed to join the video meeting.
The landlord received electronic notification of the scheduled mediation and a property manager attended. It is reasonable to therefore assume the landlord also received notification of the 22 May hearing.
The tenant’s submission that they have been inconvenienced by having to take a half day of work for the hearing on 22 May, more time off work today and further time off work if the rehearing is allowed has considerable merit.
The landlord is a large property management company and has an obligation to ensure that systems are in place to ensure Tribunal attendance for scheduled hearings.
In Emshoff v McInnes (DC Auckland, TT 1038/89, 30 October 1989), the District Court held that, where a respondent does not appear at the original hearing, the relevant considerations are a. Is there a reasonable excuse for the non-appearance? b. Did they act promptly? c. Is there a defence which ought to be heard? d. Will the applicant suffer hardship if a rehearing is granted?
I am not satisfied that there is a reasonable excuse for the non-attendance; poor administrative systems are not a reasonable excuse for a large property management company.
The landlord acted promptly applying for the rehearing.
The landlord seeks compensation over and above the bond. The tenants are willing to concede that the bond be refunded to the landlord to settle the matter but consider that any claim for rent over and above this can also be attributed to difficulties contacting their property manager and delays with the applicant actioning their request to end the fixed term.
The tenants will suffer considerable additional inconvenience and hardship/costs if the rehearing is granted.
On balance I am not satisfied that the high threshold to allow a rehearing is met.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

On 22/5/2025 the Tribunal made an order dismissing the landlord’s claims as the landlord had not attended the hearing. The order noted that the landlord had not joined the video meeting scheduled, had not answered calls to either cell phone number provided, or the number provided by the receptionist at the landlord’s office when she was also contacted (all calls going to voice mail).

On 27 May 2025, the applicant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that the property manager who completed the application had left the company and her email account had been deactivated. The new property manager had not received the notification of the hearing.

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 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.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons the applicant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

The property manager who completed the application form did not list her phone number as a contact number on the application form, she completed on 21/12/202, she listed an alternative number, which is the same number as the Tribunal used both on 22 May and again today to contact the representative for the applicant. His email address is also recorded on the application form as is the replacement property manager’s email.

It is reasonable to assume that the departing property manager was aware she was leaving the company soon after this and therefore would not be representing the landlord at the time of the hearing. She provided clear alternatives, which the order records were all used to no avail when the applicant failed to join the video meeting.

The landlord received electronic notification of the scheduled mediation and a property manager attended. It is reasonable to therefore assume the landlord also received notification of the 22 May hearing.

The tenant’s submission that they have been inconvenienced by having to take a half day of work for the hearing on 22 May, more time off work today and further time off work if the rehearing is allowed has considerable merit.

The landlord is a large property management company and has an obligation to ensure that systems are in place to ensure Tribunal attendance for scheduled hearings.

In Emshoff v McInnes (DC Auckland, TT 1038/89, 30 October 1989), the District Court held that, where a respondent does not appear at the original hearing, the relevant considerations are a. Is there a reasonable excuse for the non-appearance? b. Did they act promptly? c. Is there a defence which ought to be heard? d. Will the applicant suffer hardship if a rehearing is granted?

I am not satisfied that there is a reasonable excuse for the non-attendance; poor administrative systems are not a reasonable excuse for a large property management company.

The landlord acted promptly applying for the rehearing.

The landlord seeks compensation over and above the bond. The tenants are willing to concede that the bond be refunded to the landlord to settle the matter but consider that any claim for rent over and above this can also be attributed to difficulties contacting their property manager and delays with the applicant actioning their request to end the fixed term.

The tenants will suffer considerable additional inconvenience and hardship/costs if the rehearing is granted.

On balance I am not satisfied that the high threshold to allow a rehearing is met.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5072949 — Tenancy dispute at 28 Kokiri Street, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5072949 — Tenancy dispute at 28 Kokiri Street, Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions