What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5097349 about?

The tribunal order states: The application for a re-hearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5097349?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5097349?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5097349?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12032572-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5097349 about?

The tribunal order states: The application for a re-hearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5097349?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5097349?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5097349?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12032572-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

23 Fantham Street, Hawera, Hawera 4610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5097349 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application for a re-hearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing that took place by telephone.
The applicant applied for a rehearing of the Tribunal order dated 13 May 2025.
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”.
In this case, on 7 April 2025 the Tribunal made an order for the possession of the property. That order provided that costs would be considered on the papers. Deadlines were clearly set out for the parties in which their costs submissions were to be filed.
Upon the Tribunal considering the matter on the papers, after that deadline had passed, there was no further submission, evidence or paperwork filed by either party relating to costs.
Therefore, upon considering the papers, because there was no paperwork filed by the applicant in accordance with the deadlines in the earlier order made on 7 April 2025, the applicant’s costs application was dismissed.
The applicant now says that its legal representative did attempt to file costs submissions but they were in error sent to a no-reply email address. The email address the document is said to have been sent to, as shown on the paperwork filed by the applicant is no-reply-dispute@tenancy.govt.nz
By sending the document to this email address submissions were not received by the Tribunal and not placed on the file for my consideration. The email account for this address is entirely unmonitored.
It was the legal representative’s secretary who sent the email to the Tribunal. I heard from her as a witness today.
She says the submissions were sent on the last day and that she guesses it may have been sent quickly. She says she thought she knew what she was doing. She sent it to the wrong place in error. She cannot remember if she got a reply back from the email address advising her if it had been sent to the wrong place.
The applicant’s position is that it is human error and that they have tried to rectify the position as soon as they realised the position, once the order of 13 May 2025 was received. They point to the fact that the substantive application was successful.
The respondents say that it is the responsibility of the lawyer and the applicant to get this right. It is not a valid excuse the document was sent elsewhere and to a wrong place. It is for the lawyers to make sure it is sent correctly. It is not a miscarriage of justice. Analysis
Here the applicant had a deadline to meet - but this was not met.
The applicant is legally represented and legal representatives should be aware of the importance of meeting deadlines and lodging documents correctly when they are set by a court or tribunal.
If legal representatives are not lodging the documents themselves because an administrative assistant is doing the task then it is prudent for the legal representative to a) provide instruction and b) check it has been done correctly.
I agree with the respondents that it was for the legal representative to ensure that the document was being sent to the correct place. If there was any doubt or urgency (or even just as a matter of good practice), it is prudent to check it has been received by the Tribunal.
It is abundantly clear from the name of the email address itself that it is not a general correspondence email because it contains the words “no reply”. This is not an email given out by the Tribunal as a correspondence address.
The legal assistant says she cannot recall if she had any form of bounce back email, but I find it more likely than not that she would have had some form of bounce back/reply from the no-reply address because one would have been automatically generated. That automatic bounce back says that the email is not monitored and goes on to explain how to provide documents.
In Hooper v Bushill [2024] NZHC 1070 (3 May 2024) the High Court had to decide whether the District Court had erred by refusing to hear an appeal that was filed outside time. The appeal had procedural defects which was why it was filed out of time. The High Court dismissed the appeal and in considering prejudice or hardship to the non-defaulting party said: [60] Furthermore, there needs to be an end to this litigation. As previously noted, proceedings before the Tribunal are intended and designed to be swift and relatively free of procedural complexity, no doubt because it is important and highly desirable that disputes between tenants and landlords are resolved expeditiously and are not bogged down or frustrated by procedural skirmishes rather than focussed on the relative merits.
I find there has been no substantial wrong or that a miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur from these events.
The issue has arisen because of a failure at the legal representative’s office not a failure in legal process. That is unfortunate but the situation was avoidable by ensuring the email was sent to a valid email address (or by filing a hard copy document).
As noted above Tribunal processes are intended to be swift and matters resolved expeditiously. The time passed for filing submissions without the necessary documentation bringing an end to the issue and the litigation. When the time frame passed, the respondents were entitled to consider that they had nothing to reply to, and that the litigation had ended.
If the Tribunal granted rehearing applications each time a party expressed it had failed to do something that they could have done, but did not, in respect of applying, presenting or otherwise making their case (for example, see The Rent Shop Limited As Agent For The Mccourt And Rozgon Family Trust (Julia Rozgon As Trustee) v Sharon Schrader [2023] NZTT 4521562) the Tribunal process overall would slow down greatly and the Tribunal must be expeditious.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing that took place by telephone.

The applicant applied for a rehearing of the Tribunal order dated 13 May 2025.

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”.

In this case, on 7 April 2025 the Tribunal made an order for the possession of the property. That order provided that costs would be considered on the papers. Deadlines were clearly set out for the parties in which their costs submissions were to be filed.

Upon the Tribunal considering the matter on the papers, after that deadline had passed, there was no further submission, evidence or paperwork filed by either party relating to costs.

Therefore, upon considering the papers, because there was no paperwork filed by the applicant in accordance with the deadlines in the earlier order made on 7 April 2025, the applicant’s costs application was dismissed.

The applicant now says that its legal representative did attempt to file costs submissions but they were in error sent to a no-reply email address. The email address the document is said to have been sent to, as shown on the paperwork filed by the applicant is no-reply-dispute@tenancy.govt.nz

By sending the document to this email address submissions were not received by the Tribunal and not placed on the file for my consideration. The email account for this address is entirely unmonitored.

It was the legal representative’s secretary who sent the email to the Tribunal. I heard from her as a witness today.

She says the submissions were sent on the last day and that she guesses it may have been sent quickly. She says she thought she knew what she was doing. She sent it to the wrong place in error. She cannot remember if she got a reply back from the email address advising her if it had been sent to the wrong place.

The applicant’s position is that it is human error and that they have tried to rectify the position as soon as they realised the position, once the order of 13 May 2025 was received. They point to the fact that the substantive application was successful.

The respondents say that it is the responsibility of the lawyer and the applicant to get this right. It is not a valid excuse the document was sent elsewhere and to a wrong place. It is for the lawyers to make sure it is sent correctly. It is not a miscarriage of justice. Analysis

Here the applicant had a deadline to meet - but this was not met.

The applicant is legally represented and legal representatives should be aware of the importance of meeting deadlines and lodging documents correctly when they are set by a court or tribunal.

If legal representatives are not lodging the documents themselves because an administrative assistant is doing the task then it is prudent for the legal representative to a) provide instruction and b) check it has been done correctly.

I agree with the respondents that it was for the legal representative to ensure that the document was being sent to the correct place. If there was any doubt or urgency (or even just as a matter of good practice), it is prudent to check it has been received by the Tribunal.

It is abundantly clear from the name of the email address itself that it is not a general correspondence email because it contains the words “no reply”. This is not an email given out by the Tribunal as a correspondence address.

The legal assistant says she cannot recall if she had any form of bounce back email, but I find it more likely than not that she would have had some form of bounce back/reply from the no-reply address because one would have been automatically generated. That automatic bounce back says that the email is not monitored and goes on to explain how to provide documents.

In Hooper v Bushill [2024] NZHC 1070 (3 May 2024) the High Court had to decide whether the District Court had erred by refusing to hear an appeal that was filed outside time. The appeal had procedural defects which was why it was filed out of time. The High Court dismissed the appeal and in considering prejudice or hardship to the non-defaulting party said: [60] Furthermore, there needs to be an end to this litigation. As previously noted, proceedings before the Tribunal are intended and designed to be swift and relatively free of procedural complexity, no doubt because it is important and highly desirable that disputes between tenants and landlords are resolved expeditiously and are not bogged down or frustrated by procedural skirmishes rather than focussed on the relative merits.

I find there has been no substantial wrong or that a miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur from these events.

The issue has arisen because of a failure at the legal representative’s office not a failure in legal process. That is unfortunate but the situation was avoidable by ensuring the email was sent to a valid email address (or by filing a hard copy document).

As noted above Tribunal processes are intended to be swift and matters resolved expeditiously. The time passed for filing submissions without the necessary documentation bringing an end to the issue and the litigation. When the time frame passed, the respondents were entitled to consider that they had nothing to reply to, and that the litigation had ended.

If the Tribunal granted rehearing applications each time a party expressed it had failed to do something that they could have done, but did not, in respect of applying, presenting or otherwise making their case (for example, see The Rent Shop Limited As Agent For The Mccourt And Rozgon Family Trust (Julia Rozgon As Trustee) v Sharon Schrader [2023] NZTT 4521562) the Tribunal process overall would slow down greatly and the Tribunal must be expeditious.

The application is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5097349 — Tenancy dispute at 23 Fantham Street, Hawera, Hawera 4610

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5097349 — Tenancy dispute at 23 Fantham Street, Hawera, Hawera 4610

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