What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5080569 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 5080569?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5080569?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5080569?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11665435-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5080569 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 5080569?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5080569?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5080569?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11665435-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5080569 — 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

Both parties attended the hearing, which was conducted by teleconference. Ms Hu represented the landlord. At the tenant’s request, the Tribunal arranged for an interpreter, [interpreter], to be present (although her assistance was not required).
On 24 January 2025 the Tribunal made an order determining the applications filed by the parties. The tenancy was terminated, possession was granted to the landlord, and the tenant was to pay the landlord rent arrears and the filing fee. The tenant’s application for a rent reduction was dismissed.
The tenant applied for a rehearing on 30 January 2025 and forwarded emails detailing her reasons. This included her dissatisfaction with how she had been treated by the landlord, and not being given a copy of her tenancy agreement. She wrote that there was important evidence that she did not submit for her hearing. She provided evidence of her requests for a copy of the tenancy agreement, and an email from the power company. Other emails relating to other issues with her tenancy were also forwarded. She sought exemplary damages for the effect on her mental health and financial stability.
The matter was set for hearing, but was adjourned at the tenant’s request on medical grounds. The hearing was re-scheduled. The tenant has confirmed that she seeks a rehearing of both applications.
At the hearing, the tenant stated that having her application and the landlord’s application set for hearing on the same day had disadvantaged her. She found it difficult to respond to the landlord’s evidence at the hearing. Her application was set for mediation on 6 January 2025. Then there was a delay until the hearing (on 23 January 2025), so she became liable for more rent. She was unsure why the mediation did not proceed. She had done everything she could to pay her rent. She felt the landlord’s application was retaliatory. She had been denied access to her tenancy agreement, and the first time she received it was at the Tribunal hearing. In terms of her own application, she had further evidence of listings of similar properties in the same area.
In reply, the landlord stated they did not wish to participate in the mediation, and declined to make any further comments. Legal framework
Section 105(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) 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.
In Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, the District Court 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: [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...
In the case of Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC 1993 Judge Christiansen noted: Rehearings are about challenges to processes and procedures and are not about what the adjudicator found or the decisions the adjudicator made.
In Xpert Management Solutions Limited v Bravo [2015] NZDC 1506 the District Court confirmed that a rehearing will not be granted just because a party is unhappy with the decision, or because the applicant has a “desire to take issue with, or express a contrary view on the evidence to that reached by the Tribunal...” So, a rehearing will not be granted to give the party a second opportunity to present their case.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Having considered the tenant’s application, including the reasons given at the hearing, I find that the grounds for a rehearing have not been established. My reasons are set out below.
In this case, I do not find any procedural flaws. The tenant filed her application on 22 November 2024. The landlord’s application was made a week later, on 29 November 2024. On 2 December 2024 Tenancy Services notified the parties of a telephone mediation, to take place on 6 January 2025. At that point both the tenant’s and landlord’s applications were referred to mediation. This letter, which was emailed to the tenant, refers to the landlord’s application being attached to the notice. This indicates the tenant is likely to have been made aware of the landlord’s cross application from early December 2024.
On 23 December 2024, the parties were notified that this meeting was cancelled. Later, on 16 January 2025, the parties were notified of the hearing on 23 January 2025, to consider both the tenant’s and landlord’s applications. Again, I am satisfied the parties received adequate notice, in this case, of the Tribunal hearing.
I note the tenant’s submission that she felt disadvantaged by having both applications heard on the same day, and had difficulty responding to the landlord’s evidence. However, when an application is filed with the Tenancy Tribunal, the other party (being the respondent) has the right to file their own application. Where the applications concern the same tenancy, the usual process is to set both matters for hearing together. I am not aware of any particular features of these two applications to indicate they ought not to be heard together.
In terms of the mediation not proceeding, as this process relies on the parties reaching agreement, if one party does not wish to participate, the mediation cannot be conducted. While the tenant felt disadvantaged by the mediation process not taking place, the Tribunal hearing proceeded, a few weeks after that, giving her adequate time to prepare.
With reference to the landlord’s application, I acknowledge the tenant’s efforts in trying to meet her obligation to pay the rent. Unfortunately, she has not provided any persuasive evidence to challenge the landlord’s rent records.
I also note the additional evidence the tenant has sent in support of her rehearing. Much of this evidence relates to the substantive issues in her original application, which could reasonably have been available at the first hearing.
Other evidence relates to matters outside the scope of both applications. This includes the tenant’s concerns about not receiving a copy of her tenancy agreement, how she had been treated by the landlord, other issues that arose during her tenancy, and the effect on her mental health and financial stability. These issues, while important to the tenant, will not be grounds for the granting of a rehearing. If the tenant has further claims, she has the option to pursue these by filing another application.
In this case, I acknowledge that, as a result of the Tribunal’s decision, the tenant has faced a challenging and difficult situation. Her dissatisfaction with the outcome, her ongoing unhappiness with the landlord, and with aspects of her tenancy, are also noted. However, a rehearing will not be granted where one party is unhappy with the decision because it is not a second opportunity to present their case.
Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, I find that the tenant has not been able to establish that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has, or may have occurred, or is likely to occur. Consequently, the application for rehearing is dismissed.

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

Both parties attended the hearing, which was conducted by teleconference. Ms Hu represented the landlord. At the tenant’s request, the Tribunal arranged for an interpreter, [interpreter], to be present (although her assistance was not required).
On 24 January 2025 the Tribunal made an order determining the applications filed by the parties. The tenancy was terminated, possession was granted to the landlord, and the tenant was to pay the landlord rent arrears and the filing fee. The tenant’s application for a rent reduction was dismissed.
The tenant applied for a rehearing on 30 January 2025 and forwarded emails detailing her reasons. This included her dissatisfaction with how she had been treated by the landlord, and not being given a copy of her tenancy agreement. She wrote that there was important evidence that she did not submit for her hearing. She provided evidence of her requests for a copy of the tenancy agreement, and an email from the power company. Other emails relating to other issues with her tenancy were also forwarded. She sought exemplary damages for the effect on her mental health and financial stability.
The matter was set for hearing, but was adjourned at the tenant’s request on medical grounds. The hearing was re-scheduled. The tenant has confirmed that she seeks a rehearing of both applications.
At the hearing, the tenant stated that having her application and the landlord’s application set for hearing on the same day had disadvantaged her. She found it difficult to respond to the landlord’s evidence at the hearing. Her application was set for mediation on 6 January 2025. Then there was a delay until the hearing (on 23 January 2025), so she became liable for more rent. She was unsure why the mediation did not proceed. She had done everything she could to pay her rent. She felt the landlord’s application was retaliatory. She had been denied access to her tenancy agreement, and the first time she received it was at the Tribunal hearing. In terms of her own application, she had further evidence of listings of similar properties in the same area.
In reply, the landlord stated they did not wish to participate in the mediation, and declined to make any further comments. Legal framework
Section 105(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) 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.
In Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, the District Court 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: [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...
In the case of Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC 1993 Judge Christiansen noted: Rehearings are about challenges to processes and procedures and are not about what the adjudicator found or the decisions the adjudicator made.
In Xpert Management Solutions Limited v Bravo [2015] NZDC 1506 the District Court confirmed that a rehearing will not be granted just because a party is unhappy with the decision, or because the applicant has a “desire to take issue with, or express a contrary view on the evidence to that reached by the Tribunal...” So, a rehearing will not be granted to give the party a second opportunity to present their case.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Having considered the tenant’s application, including the reasons given at the hearing, I find that the grounds for a rehearing have not been established. My reasons are set out below.
In this case, I do not find any procedural flaws. The tenant filed her application on 22 November 2024. The landlord’s application was made a week later, on 29 November 2024. On 2 December 2024 Tenancy Services notified the parties of a telephone mediation, to take place on 6 January 2025. At that point both the tenant’s and landlord’s applications were referred to mediation. This letter, which was emailed to the tenant, refers to the landlord’s application being attached to the notice. This indicates the tenant is likely to have been made aware of the landlord’s cross application from early December 2024.
On 23 December 2024, the parties were notified that this meeting was cancelled. Later, on 16 January 2025, the parties were notified of the hearing on 23 January 2025, to consider both the tenant’s and landlord’s applications. Again, I am satisfied the parties received adequate notice, in this case, of the Tribunal hearing.
I note the tenant’s submission that she felt disadvantaged by having both applications heard on the same day, and had difficulty responding to the landlord’s evidence. However, when an application is filed with the Tenancy Tribunal, the other party (being the respondent) has the right to file their own application. Where the applications concern the same tenancy, the usual process is to set both matters for hearing together. I am not aware of any particular features of these two applications to indicate they ought not to be heard together.
In terms of the mediation not proceeding, as this process relies on the parties reaching agreement, if one party does not wish to participate, the mediation cannot be conducted. While the tenant felt disadvantaged by the mediation process not taking place, the Tribunal hearing proceeded, a few weeks after that, giving her adequate time to prepare.
With reference to the landlord’s application, I acknowledge the tenant’s efforts in trying to meet her obligation to pay the rent. Unfortunately, she has not provided any persuasive evidence to challenge the landlord’s rent records.
I also note the additional evidence the tenant has sent in support of her rehearing. Much of this evidence relates to the substantive issues in her original application, which could reasonably have been available at the first hearing.
Other evidence relates to matters outside the scope of both applications. This includes the tenant’s concerns about not receiving a copy of her tenancy agreement, how she had been treated by the landlord, other issues that arose during her tenancy, and the effect on her mental health and financial stability. These issues, while important to the tenant, will not be grounds for the granting of a rehearing. If the tenant has further claims, she has the option to pursue these by filing another application.
In this case, I acknowledge that, as a result of the Tribunal’s decision, the tenant has faced a challenging and difficult situation. Her dissatisfaction with the outcome, her ongoing unhappiness with the landlord, and with aspects of her tenancy, are also noted. However, a rehearing will not be granted where one party is unhappy with the decision because it is not a second opportunity to present their case.
Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, I find that the tenant has not been able to establish that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has, or may have occurred, or is likely to occur. Consequently, the application for rehearing is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5080569 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5080569 — Rent arrears

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