What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5100173 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5100173?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5100173?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5100173?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12234835-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5100173 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5100173?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5100173?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5100173?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12234835-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5100173 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended by telephone.
On 15 April 2025, the Tribunal dismissed claims made by the tenant that the landlord had failed to provide and maintain an adequate means for the collection and storage of water.
On 24 April 2025, the tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that the Tribunal had misapplied the relevant law, and that “wholesome” referred to in the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947, and the Building Act 2004, meant water that was free from any contamination. They claimed to have new expert evidence, including an opinion that carbon filters are not adequate for removing e - coli from water. The tenant argued that the Tribunal had failed to consider that, despite the tank being treated and cleaned on 05 December 2024, the water samples still showed the presence of e - coli. They further claimed that the landlord’s test, taken after the end of the tenancy from the designated drinking tap was irrelevant and therefore inadmissible. Although the tenant had stated at the original hearing that the exact cause of their illness was unknown, that they now had a letter from a medical practitioner stating that their illness had, in fact, been caused by e-coli.
The landlord responded that the tenant was attempting to relitigate the claim. They submitted that the Tribunal had properly identified and applied the relevant law. That the tenant had not tested water from the designated filtered drinking tap during the tenancy. That the new evidence referred to by the tenant was not material that could not reasonably have been obtained for the first hearing, and that all other matters now raised by the tenant had already been considered at the first hearing. Law
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 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?

I am not satisfied that there are grounds on which to grant a rehearing. At no point during the tenancy did the tenant take a water sample from the designated drinking tap. I accept the landlord’s submissions that the relevant law was identified and applied, and that the new evidence referred to is not evidence that was unavailable and could not reasonably have been produced at the first hearing.

Reasons

Both parties attended by telephone.

On 15 April 2025, the Tribunal dismissed claims made by the tenant that the landlord had failed to provide and maintain an adequate means for the collection and storage of water.

On 24 April 2025, the tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that the Tribunal had misapplied the relevant law, and that “wholesome” referred to in the Housing Improvement Regulations 1947, and the Building Act 2004, meant water that was free from any contamination. They claimed to have new expert evidence, including an opinion that carbon filters are not adequate for removing e - coli from water. The tenant argued that the Tribunal had failed to consider that, despite the tank being treated and cleaned on 05 December 2024, the water samples still showed the presence of e - coli. They further claimed that the landlord’s test, taken after the end of the tenancy from the designated drinking tap was irrelevant and therefore inadmissible. Although the tenant had stated at the original hearing that the exact cause of their illness was unknown, that they now had a letter from a medical practitioner stating that their illness had, in fact, been caused by e-coli.

The landlord responded that the tenant was attempting to relitigate the claim. They submitted that the Tribunal had properly identified and applied the relevant law. That the tenant had not tested water from the designated filtered drinking tap during the tenancy. That the new evidence referred to by the tenant was not material that could not reasonably have been obtained for the first hearing, and that all other matters now raised by the tenant had already been considered at the first hearing. Law

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 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?

I am not satisfied that there are grounds on which to grant a rehearing. At no point during the tenancy did the tenant take a water sample from the designated drinking tap. I accept the landlord’s submissions that the relevant law was identified and applied, and that the new evidence referred to is not evidence that was unavailable and could not reasonably have been produced at the first hearing.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5100173 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5100173 — 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