What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5080988 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 5080988?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5080988?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5080988?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12573561-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5080988 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 5080988?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5080988?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5080988?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12573561-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

846H Manukau Road, Royal Oak, Auckland 1061 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5080988 — Exemplary damages

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

On 1 May 2025 the Tribunal made an order for compensation and exemplary damages.

On 16 June 2025, Tingjing Wang applied for a rehearing on the grounds that she had received new evidence.

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.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

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

The new evidence referred to by the landlord was photographs of the damage she claims was caused by the tenant. She said that the photographs were taken before the tenant moved in but could not provide any specific date for the photographs. She also said that the photographs have not been produced or printed out because she did not know the Tribunal needed this evidence.

Another document which the landlord claims was new evidence is a note signed by Memo Meng which refers to communication with the landlord on 24 May 2024. The landlord advised that she received that document from Memo Meng on 20 July 2024 but did not know that she should have provided this at the earlier hearings. This evidence was available at the earlier hearing but the landlord did not produce it.

The landlord has failed to establish any grounds for a rehearing.

The hearing held on 1 May 2025 was a full rehearing of an earlier decision by another Adjudicator.

Since the 1 May 2025 order the landlord has applied three times for rehearing, all of which have been unsuccessful and have not raised any new or substantial grounds. The landlord is advised that the Tribunal has the power under section 102(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 to order costs against a party whose application is found to be frivolous or vexatious, or ought not to have been brought.

The landlord is therefore warned that any further rehearing applications that are not based on substantial new grounds may result in an order for costs being made against her.

As the tenant is the respondent in this matter, I have granted suppression. While the landlord had suppression granted in an earlier order, this application was not successful and therefore no suppression is granted.

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 1 May 2025 the Tribunal made an order for compensation and exemplary damages.
On 16 June 2025, Tingjing Wang applied for a rehearing on the grounds that she had received new evidence.
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.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons Tingjing Wang has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
The new evidence referred to by the landlord was photographs of the damage she claims was caused by the tenant. She said that the photographs were taken before the tenant moved in but could not provide any specific date for the photographs. She also said that the photographs have not been produced or printed out because she did not know the Tribunal needed this evidence.
Another document which the landlord claims was new evidence is a note signed by Memo Meng which refers to communication with the landlord on 24 May 2024. The landlord advised that she received that document from Memo Meng on 20 July 2024 but did not know that she should have provided this at the earlier hearings. This evidence was available at the earlier hearing but the landlord did not produce it.
The landlord has failed to establish any grounds for a rehearing.
The hearing held on 1 May 2025 was a full rehearing of an earlier decision by another Adjudicator.
Since the 1 May 2025 order the landlord has applied three times for rehearing, all of which have been unsuccessful and have not raised any new or substantial grounds. The landlord is advised that the Tribunal has the power under section 102(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 to order costs against a party whose application is found to be frivolous or vexatious, or ought not to have been brought.
The landlord is therefore warned that any further rehearing applications that are not based on substantial new grounds may result in an order for costs being made against her.
As the tenant is the respondent in this matter, I have granted suppression. While the landlord had suppression granted in an earlier order, this application was not successful and therefore no suppression is granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5080988 — Exemplary damages at 846H Manukau Road, Royal Oak, Auckland 1061

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5080988 — Exemplary damages at 846H Manukau Road, Royal Oak, Auckland 1061

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

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions