What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5106028 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5106028?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5106028?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5106028?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11854886-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5106028 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5106028?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5106028?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5106028?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11854886-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5106028 — Exemplary damages

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 19 March 2025 the Tribunal made an order for exemplary damages, a rent refund, compensation, and refund of bond.
On 24 March 2025, the landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that there were false claims made by the tenant, there were material omissions in the Tribunal’s decision, procedural misrepresentations by the tenant and ultimately an unjust decision issued. In particular: a. The Tribunal had incorrectly determined the tenancy termination date (and failed to consider key facts in that determination). b. There was a biased application of exemplary damages as between the landlord and the tenant. c. The Tribunal overlooked tenant breaches and non-compliance with the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). d. The Tribunal ignored health and safety risks created by the tenant. e. The Tribunal ignored the tenants’ defamation, misrepresentation, and pattern of deception. f. There were procedural failures by the Tribunal.
The landlord says that the procedural failures included improper weighting of evidence, failure to acknowledge the tenants’ plans to undermine the landlord, failure to apply MBIE (tenancy services) advice, dismissing clear violations of deception, failing to identify maintenance charges, failing to ascertain dates, and incorrectly applying the law relating to unlawful entry. The landlord says these resulted in a miscarriage of justice. They also say that the stress and impact of that stress caused by the tenant’s actions was not properly considered.
The landlord has provided written submissions and evidence in support of these grounds.
The tenants have opposed the rehearing application and provided a written response.
I also heard from both parties who gave oral submissions supporting their respective positions. The Law
Section 105(1) of 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.
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.
The applicant need not establish an actual miscarriage of justice or substantial wrong, only that it may have occurred. However, in the District Court Judgment of Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, Judge Tuohy held that the statutory language set a high standard, and that: [18] ... They most obviously apply ... to cases of procedural error eg a hearing which takes place in the absence of a party who has not been given notice of it; the improper admission or rejection of evidence; misconduct by the adjudicator or by one of the parties or a witness. The words may also encompass the discovery of new and important evidence not previously available. [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: once to the very Tribunal which made it by way of an application for rehearing, and then again to the District Court against the grant or refusal of the application for rehearing. Not only does that offend the general hierarchical nature of the appeal system, it would also make the time limit for filing notice of appeal against an original decision nugatory.”
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.
As noted by Judge Christiansen in the District Court appeal of Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC 1993: In this Court’s view the Tribunal’s reasons for refusing a rehearing are correct. Rehearings are about challenges to processes and procedures and are not about what the adjudicator found or the decisions the adjudicator made.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons the landlord has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
All the grounds advanced, including the submissions in respect of each ground and the evidence provided supporting the rehearing application, are in respect of challenges to the findings and decisions the adjudicator made.
None of the grounds relate to a procedural error, or improper admission of rejection of evidence, or misconduct by any person or party. There is also no indication that any relevant or material evidence has been discovered that was not available at the time of the hearing.
The grounds instead relate to a complaint that the Tribunal was mistaken or wrong in its findings of fact or in its application of the law, or its weighing of the evidence; or that the Tribunal failed to accurately and adequately consider the evidence relating to the manipulation and deception of the tenant.
These are not grounds for a rehearing, but instead are grounds for an appeal.
Accordingly, the application for a rehearing is dismissed. R Harvey-Lane 16 May 2025

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 19 March 2025 the Tribunal made an order for exemplary damages, a rent refund, compensation, and refund of bond.
On 24 March 2025, the landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that there were false claims made by the tenant, there were material omissions in the Tribunal’s decision, procedural misrepresentations by the tenant and ultimately an unjust decision issued. In particular: a. The Tribunal had incorrectly determined the tenancy termination date (and failed to consider key facts in that determination). b. There was a biased application of exemplary damages as between the landlord and the tenant. c. The Tribunal overlooked tenant breaches and non-compliance with the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). d. The Tribunal ignored health and safety risks created by the tenant. e. The Tribunal ignored the tenants’ defamation, misrepresentation, and pattern of deception. f. There were procedural failures by the Tribunal.
The landlord says that the procedural failures included improper weighting of evidence, failure to acknowledge the tenants’ plans to undermine the landlord, failure to apply MBIE (tenancy services) advice, dismissing clear violations of deception, failing to identify maintenance charges, failing to ascertain dates, and incorrectly applying the law relating to unlawful entry. The landlord says these resulted in a miscarriage of justice. They also say that the stress and impact of that stress caused by the tenant’s actions was not properly considered.
The landlord has provided written submissions and evidence in support of these grounds.
The tenants have opposed the rehearing application and provided a written response.
I also heard from both parties who gave oral submissions supporting their respective positions. The Law
Section 105(1) of 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.
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.
The applicant need not establish an actual miscarriage of justice or substantial wrong, only that it may have occurred. However, in the District Court Judgment of Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, Judge Tuohy held that the statutory language set a high standard, and that: [18] ... They most obviously apply ... to cases of procedural error eg a hearing which takes place in the absence of a party who has not been given notice of it; the improper admission or rejection of evidence; misconduct by the adjudicator or by one of the parties or a witness. The words may also encompass the discovery of new and important evidence not previously available. [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: once to the very Tribunal which made it by way of an application for rehearing, and then again to the District Court against the grant or refusal of the application for rehearing. Not only does that offend the general hierarchical nature of the appeal system, it would also make the time limit for filing notice of appeal against an original decision nugatory.”
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.
As noted by Judge Christiansen in the District Court appeal of Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC 1993: In this Court’s view the Tribunal’s reasons for refusing a rehearing are correct. Rehearings are about challenges to processes and procedures and are not about what the adjudicator found or the decisions the adjudicator made.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons the landlord has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
All the grounds advanced, including the submissions in respect of each ground and the evidence provided supporting the rehearing application, are in respect of challenges to the findings and decisions the adjudicator made.
None of the grounds relate to a procedural error, or improper admission of rejection of evidence, or misconduct by any person or party. There is also no indication that any relevant or material evidence has been discovered that was not available at the time of the hearing.
The grounds instead relate to a complaint that the Tribunal was mistaken or wrong in its findings of fact or in its application of the law, or its weighing of the evidence; or that the Tribunal failed to accurately and adequately consider the evidence relating to the manipulation and deception of the tenant.
These are not grounds for a rehearing, but instead are grounds for an appeal.
Accordingly, the application for a rehearing is dismissed. R Harvey-Lane 16 May 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5106028 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5106028 — Exemplary damages

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