What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5075568 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 5075568?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5075568?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5075568?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11661208-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5075568 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 5075568?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5075568?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5075568?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11661208-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5075568 — Tenancy dispute

Order

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

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 19 December the Tribunal made an order dismissing the landlord’s application for termination of the tenancy.
The landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that now has permission to present some of the evidence it withheld at the first hearing, it has assurances that its witness would attend if the matter was heard again and it has a recording of the tenant admitting that he was untruthful at the first 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 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.
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 is 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.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons the landlord has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
The landlord’s application was to terminate the tenancy for an alleged threat of assault on another tenant which occurred in late October 2024. The landlord was unable to provide any direct, in-person evidence of the alleged event at the first hearing. Its witnesses did not attend but did provide written statements.
The only person I heard from with direct knowledge or involvement in the alleged threat was the tenant. He denied a threat of assault but acknowledged an incident occurred and said that he told the other tenant that he would slash her stuff, as she had slashed his tyres. He said that he was angry that his tyres had been slashed and that he just wants to live quietly.
I preferred the tenant’s evidence over the written statements and hearsay from the landlord. That finding was available to me on the evidence.
Much of the evidence presented by both parties was conjecture and contextual. There was very little directly relating to the alleged threat.
The landlord now says that it would relocate its witnesses, so that that they are prepared to attend a hearing. This landlord is familiar with the evidential requirements, particularly in assault claims. It had the option to relocate witnesses before the first hearing, if it considered that was necessary or appropriate. I also note that all of the evidence regarding witness fear and intimidation is hearsay and conjecture. In contrast the tenant showed me photographs of the alleged victim standing in front of his unit, staring in.
The landlord also says that it now has permission to play a video in full showing the tenant a few nights after the alleged threat. I have now watched the video in full. I am not persuaded it would have changed the outcome of the first hearing; it is not from the day in question and is contextual only. The behaviour shown could give the landlord cause to issue an anti-social behaviour notice but does not establish that a threat was made a few days earlier.
The landlord provided a recording of a call with the tenant from after the first hearing, in which the tenant confirms that it is him in the video recording, despite questioning that at the first hearing. The landlord says that the tenant’s acknowledgement is grounds for a rehearing. I do not accept that submission; the video is not evidence of the alleged threat. If the landlord believes that the tenant has given false evidence, it may make a complaint with the appropriate authority.
The call is relevant in that the tenant maintains throughout, that he did not threaten the alleged victim. His comments on that issue are consistent with he evidence he gave at the first hearing.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

On 19 December the Tribunal made an order dismissing the landlord’s application for termination of the tenancy.

The landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that now has permission to present some of the evidence it withheld at the first hearing, it has assurances that its witness would attend if the matter was heard again and it has a recording of the tenant admitting that he was untruthful at the first 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 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.

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 is 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.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

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

The landlord’s application was to terminate the tenancy for an alleged threat of assault on another tenant which occurred in late October 2024. The landlord was unable to provide any direct, in-person evidence of the alleged event at the first hearing. Its witnesses did not attend but did provide written statements.

The only person I heard from with direct knowledge or involvement in the alleged threat was the tenant. He denied a threat of assault but acknowledged an incident occurred and said that he told the other tenant that he would slash her stuff, as she had slashed his tyres. He said that he was angry that his tyres had been slashed and that he just wants to live quietly.

I preferred the tenant’s evidence over the written statements and hearsay from the landlord. That finding was available to me on the evidence.

Much of the evidence presented by both parties was conjecture and contextual. There was very little directly relating to the alleged threat.

The landlord now says that it would relocate its witnesses, so that that they are prepared to attend a hearing. This landlord is familiar with the evidential requirements, particularly in assault claims. It had the option to relocate witnesses before the first hearing, if it considered that was necessary or appropriate. I also note that all of the evidence regarding witness fear and intimidation is hearsay and conjecture. In contrast the tenant showed me photographs of the alleged victim standing in front of his unit, staring in.

The landlord also says that it now has permission to play a video in full showing the tenant a few nights after the alleged threat. I have now watched the video in full. I am not persuaded it would have changed the outcome of the first hearing; it is not from the day in question and is contextual only. The behaviour shown could give the landlord cause to issue an anti-social behaviour notice but does not establish that a threat was made a few days earlier.

The landlord provided a recording of a call with the tenant from after the first hearing, in which the tenant confirms that it is him in the video recording, despite questioning that at the first hearing. The landlord says that the tenant’s acknowledgement is grounds for a rehearing. I do not accept that submission; the video is not evidence of the alleged threat. If the landlord believes that the tenant has given false evidence, it may make a complaint with the appropriate authority.

The call is relevant in that the tenant maintains throughout, that he did not threaten the alleged victim. His comments on that issue are consistent with he evidence he gave at the first hearing.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5075568 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5075568 — Tenancy dispute

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