What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5118471 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5118471?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5118471?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5118471?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12032935-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5118471 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5118471?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5118471?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5118471?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12032935-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

80 Reed Street, Oamaru, Oamaru 9400 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5118471 — Boarding House

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Mr Pinlac and Mr Reilly attended a rehearing hearing by video.
On 15 April 2025 the Tribunal made orders awarding compensation to Mr Reilly.
On 29 April 2025, Mr Pinlac applied for a rehearing on the grounds that a miscarriage of justice had occurred.
Section 105(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (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”.
In this context, a miscarriage of justice refers to issues of process or procedure. 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. 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. In Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, the District Court stated: [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. Timing of Rehearing Application
A rehearing application must be made within 5 working days of the decision (or in such further time as the Tribunal allows). See s105(2) RTA.
Allowing for the Easter break, Mr Pinalc should have made his rehearing application by 27 April 2025. It was made two days later.
I allow the extension of time and have considered the substance of the rehearing application.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons Mr Pinlac has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
Neither his written submissions or oral presentation at the rehearing identified any error in the Tribunal’s process. Rather, he said that the decision wasn’t fair and purported to re-litigate the evidence given at the first hearing.
He said that the Tribunal did not properly consider his evidence from the first hearing and maintained that this was a boarding house tenancy. He also repeated that the tenancy had been terminated before he took over the “head lease” for the premises. Those issues were traversed in detail at the first hearing. The evidence and my findings are set out in paragraphs 12 to 18 of the 15 April Order. If Mr Pinlac disagrees with those findings, that would have a been a matter for appeal from the 15 April Order; it is not a ground for rehearing (Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50).
Mr Pinlac maintains that if the 15 April decision is upheld, that would mean that no-one could have terminated Mr Reilly’s tenancy. That submission is incorrect. The Tribunal found that Ms Hung had not terminated the room-by- room tenancy. Mr Pinlac then became the landlord. He could have terminated the room-by-room tenancy by giving a valid notice under s51 RTA, but he did not. He attempted to terminate on 28 days’ notice. In any event, that is an issue of law; it is not a ground for rehearing.
Mr Pinlac also claimed that the Tribunal failed to take account of claims he says that he has against Mr Reilly for outgoings. There was no properly made application for the Tribunal to consider. Mr Pinlac has not submitted an application or claim with Tenancy Services. This is also referred to at paragraph 25 of the 15 April decision.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Mr Pinlac and Mr Reilly attended a rehearing hearing by video.
On 15 April 2025 the Tribunal made orders awarding compensation to Mr Reilly.
On 29 April 2025, Mr Pinlac applied for a rehearing on the grounds that a miscarriage of justice had occurred.
Section 105(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (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”.
In this context, a miscarriage of justice refers to issues of process or procedure. 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. 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. In Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, the District Court stated: [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. Timing of Rehearing Application
A rehearing application must be made within 5 working days of the decision (or in such further time as the Tribunal allows). See s105(2) RTA.
Allowing for the Easter break, Mr Pinalc should have made his rehearing application by 27 April 2025. It was made two days later.
I allow the extension of time and have considered the substance of the rehearing application.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons Mr Pinlac has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
Neither his written submissions or oral presentation at the rehearing identified any error in the Tribunal’s process. Rather, he said that the decision wasn’t fair and purported to re-litigate the evidence given at the first hearing.
He said that the Tribunal did not properly consider his evidence from the first hearing and maintained that this was a boarding house tenancy. He also repeated that the tenancy had been terminated before he took over the “head lease” for the premises. Those issues were traversed in detail at the first hearing. The evidence and my findings are set out in paragraphs 12 to 18 of the 15 April Order. If Mr Pinlac disagrees with those findings, that would have a been a matter for appeal from the 15 April Order; it is not a ground for rehearing (Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50).
Mr Pinlac maintains that if the 15 April decision is upheld, that would mean that no-one could have terminated Mr Reilly’s tenancy. That submission is incorrect. The Tribunal found that Ms Hung had not terminated the room-by- room tenancy. Mr Pinlac then became the landlord. He could have terminated the room-by-room tenancy by giving a valid notice under s51 RTA, but he did not. He attempted to terminate on 28 days’ notice. In any event, that is an issue of law; it is not a ground for rehearing.
Mr Pinlac also claimed that the Tribunal failed to take account of claims he says that he has against Mr Reilly for outgoings. There was no properly made application for the Tribunal to consider. Mr Pinlac has not submitted an application or claim with Tenancy Services. This is also referred to at paragraph 25 of the 15 April decision.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5118471 — Boarding House at 80 Reed Street, Oamaru, Oamaru 9400

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5118471 — Boarding House at 80 Reed Street, Oamaru, Oamaru 9400

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.