What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5106170 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5106170?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5106170?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5106170?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13242224-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5106170 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5106170?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5106170?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5106170?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13242224-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

58A Salisbury Street, Levin, Levin 5510 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5106170 — Rent arrears

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The Tenancy Tribunal order dated 7 July 2025 for payment of rent arrears and the application filing fee stands.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing today, although the tenant only attended the hearing for approximately 5 minutes before hanging up. He was agitated, stating that now was not a good time and that he could not speak for long.
On 7 July 2025 the Tribunal made an order for payment of rent arrears and reimbursement of the application filing fee.
On 11 December 2025 the tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that he did not know anything about the earlier hearing date.
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 the tenant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
The tenant seeks a rehearing on the basis that he knew nothing about the earlier hearing. The tenant attended today’s hearing briefly before hanging up the call after approximately 5 minutes.
The original hearing took place remotely on 1 May 2025. The tenant was notified of this hearing date by the Tribunal on 5 March 2025. The tenant failed to attend the hearing on this date.
A rehearing was then granted at the request of the landlord in respect of the spelling of the tenant’s name.
A remote telephone rehearing was convened on 7 July 2025 in respect of the original landlord application. There was no attendance by the tenant at the scheduled hearing date and time. The hearing continued in his absence. Tribunal records confirm that the tenant was notified of this hearing date to his email address for service on 22 May 2025.
The tenant says that the only way he found out about the earlier order was by calling the Ministry of Justice on an unrelated matter.
A check of the Tribunal and application records confirm the tenant’s email address for service of jonny@dixonfinancials.co.nz was recorded in his original tenancy agreement, signed and dated 1 December 2022. The email address recorded in his rehearing request dated 11 December 2025 is dixonfinancials@icloud.com
The landlord advised during today’s rehearing consideration that she received an email from the tenant using his email address for service of jonny@dixonfinancials.co.nz on 24 January 2025.
On 25 January 2025 the Tribunal notified the tenant using this same email address in respect of a scheduled mediation hearing date. Numerous other notifications and reminders from the Tribunal were sent to the tenant using this same email address.
The tenancy ended on or about 1 November 2024. The landlord’s application was lodged on 12 December 2024. The following provisions of the RTA apply: 91AService on tenants following application (1) If a landlord files an application within 2 months after the termination of the tenancy to which it relates, any notice or other document required to be served on the tenant in connection with the application is deemed to have been properly served on the tenant if— (a) it is sent by post addressed to the tenant at the address or the Post Office box given by the tenant as an address for service in accordance with this Act or to a contact address that the tenant has supplied to the landlord in writing within the 2 months before the application; or (b) it is delivered to the premises to which any address for service relates or to that contact address and either placed in the mailbox or attached to the door in a prominent position; or (c) it is given to or served on the tenant personally; or (d) it is given to or served on the tenant in accordance with section 136(2); or (e) it is transmitted to the email address or facsimile number given by the tenant as an address for service.
Having carefully considered the tenant’s request for a rehearing I am entirely satisfied that the tenant was served and notified in accordance with the provisions of the RTA. Whilst the tenant appears to have changed his mobile phone number at a later stage there is no evidence before me which suggests that he was unable to receive emails to his email address for service. I am also satisfied that his email address for service of jonny@dixonfinancials.co.nz was a functioning email address at the time he was notified of these Tribunal proceedings. I find that no miscarriage of justice may have or is likely to have occurred in respect of the Tribunal order dated 7 July 2025.
Accordingly, the tenant’s request for a rehearing is refused.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The Tenancy Tribunal order dated 7 July 2025 for payment of rent arrears and the application filing fee stands.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing today, although the tenant only attended the hearing for approximately 5 minutes before hanging up. He was agitated, stating that now was not a good time and that he could not speak for long.
On 7 July 2025 the Tribunal made an order for payment of rent arrears and reimbursement of the application filing fee.
On 11 December 2025 the tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that he did not know anything about the earlier hearing date.
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 the tenant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
The tenant seeks a rehearing on the basis that he knew nothing about the earlier hearing. The tenant attended today’s hearing briefly before hanging up the call after approximately 5 minutes.
The original hearing took place remotely on 1 May 2025. The tenant was notified of this hearing date by the Tribunal on 5 March 2025. The tenant failed to attend the hearing on this date.
A rehearing was then granted at the request of the landlord in respect of the spelling of the tenant’s name.
A remote telephone rehearing was convened on 7 July 2025 in respect of the original landlord application. There was no attendance by the tenant at the scheduled hearing date and time. The hearing continued in his absence. Tribunal records confirm that the tenant was notified of this hearing date to his email address for service on 22 May 2025.
The tenant says that the only way he found out about the earlier order was by calling the Ministry of Justice on an unrelated matter.
A check of the Tribunal and application records confirm the tenant’s email address for service of jonny@dixonfinancials.co.nz was recorded in his original tenancy agreement, signed and dated 1 December 2022. The email address recorded in his rehearing request dated 11 December 2025 is dixonfinancials@icloud.com
The landlord advised during today’s rehearing consideration that she received an email from the tenant using his email address for service of jonny@dixonfinancials.co.nz on 24 January 2025.
On 25 January 2025 the Tribunal notified the tenant using this same email address in respect of a scheduled mediation hearing date. Numerous other notifications and reminders from the Tribunal were sent to the tenant using this same email address.
The tenancy ended on or about 1 November 2024. The landlord’s application was lodged on 12 December 2024. The following provisions of the RTA apply: 91AService on tenants following application (1) If a landlord files an application within 2 months after the termination of the tenancy to which it relates, any notice or other document required to be served on the tenant in connection with the application is deemed to have been properly served on the tenant if— (a) it is sent by post addressed to the tenant at the address or the Post Office box given by the tenant as an address for service in accordance with this Act or to a contact address that the tenant has supplied to the landlord in writing within the 2 months before the application; or (b) it is delivered to the premises to which any address for service relates or to that contact address and either placed in the mailbox or attached to the door in a prominent position; or (c) it is given to or served on the tenant personally; or (d) it is given to or served on the tenant in accordance with section 136(2); or (e) it is transmitted to the email address or facsimile number given by the tenant as an address for service.
Having carefully considered the tenant’s request for a rehearing I am entirely satisfied that the tenant was served and notified in accordance with the provisions of the RTA. Whilst the tenant appears to have changed his mobile phone number at a later stage there is no evidence before me which suggests that he was unable to receive emails to his email address for service. I am also satisfied that his email address for service of jonny@dixonfinancials.co.nz was a functioning email address at the time he was notified of these Tribunal proceedings. I find that no miscarriage of justice may have or is likely to have occurred in respect of the Tribunal order dated 7 July 2025.
Accordingly, the tenant’s request for a rehearing is refused.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5106170 — Rent arrears at 58A Salisbury Street, Levin, Levin 5510

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5106170 — Rent arrears at 58A Salisbury Street, Levin, Levin 5510

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

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.