What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5135589?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5135589?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5135589?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5135589?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11656403-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5135589?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5135589?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5135589?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5135589?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11656403-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

16 Valley Road, Greta Valley, RD 1, Greta Valley 7387 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5135589 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application for rehearing filed by the tenants. A telephone hearing was convened today to consider that rehearing request.

BACKGROUND

In terms of this rehearing request, the background can be summarised succinctly as follows.
The Tribunal received an application from the landlord seeking a possession order.
A telephone hearing was scheduled on 4 February 2025 to consider that application.
The adjudicator (Ms Setefano) telephoned the tenants, but they did not answer, so she proceeded to hear the claim. The landlord did attend the phone hearing as scheduled by way of counsel.
That same day a possession order was granted.
The tenants have applied for a rehearing. The tenants say they attended the Christchurch courthouse, not realising the hearing was a phone hearing.
I convened a telephone hearing today, 1 April 2025, and both parties attended. The purpose of the hearing was only to decide if a rehearing would be granted. TENANTS’S POSITION
The tenants submit that a rehearing should be granted for these reasons: a. The tenants consider they had a rent-to-buy agreement, and that they acted in good faith. The tenants say there was no tenancy. b. The tenants said that they missed the original phone call, and when they did they contacted the Tenancy Tribunal straight away. The tenants say that they went to the courthouse for the hearing. The tenants said they were confused about the matter at the time, and they “just missed the calls within seconds”. The tenant said the phone went off in his pocket, and he says that they were expecting the call, but when I asked for further clarification around that the response was less clear. The tenant said that he phoned the tenancy 0800 number right away. c. The instructions around the hearing arrangements were not clear. RESPONDENT’S POSITION
The Respondent opposes the rehearing request for these reasons: a. A rehearing would not change the outcome. b. The instructions for the hearing were clear.

RELEVANT LAW

Section 105 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 relates to rehearings. Subsection 1 confirms that: The Tribunal shall in all proceedings have the power to order a rehearing of the whole or any part of the proceedings on the ground that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur.
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.”
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.

ANALYSIS

I have set out the relevant law that applies to rehearings above. In short, re- hearings are a safety measure should something have gone wrong with the hearing, normally on a procedural basis, in which case a rehearing can be approved so that the matter then returns to the Tribunal for a further hearing.
I have considered the submissions from the Applicant, and find that no procedural issues have been identified, and I cannot see any potential for a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice to justify a rehearing, for these reasons.
As indicated above, a rehearing cannot be ordered just because a party disagrees with a decision, or considers that the decision was wrong in fact or law. I will address this argument from the tenants further below.
The only basis upon which a rehearing could be ordered, is if there was some procedural issue that arose with the hearing that meant the tenant missed the hearing, and I find there was not.
The tenants position is not entirely clear. On the one hand they say they did not realise it was a phone hearing, on the other they indicated at the hearing today that they were expecting a call.
In the application for rehearing the tenants say: The hearing was phone conference and we believe the paperwork from the Tenancy Tribunal says nothing of a phone conference. Christine and I turned up at the Christchurch Courts for our case at 2pm only to find out after 15 minutes (2:15pm) that it was a phone conference. We both did not know this and believe we were not given the proper information to even attend this case properly...
I note the hearing was scheduled at 2:00pm.
At my hearing today the tenant said that soon after missing the call at 2:00pm, he telephoned the 0800 number. The only record I can find of that call is a note from 3:04pm that day where the call taker records: OP Mark Rahui called upset that he had missed the hearing. He had gone to the court and turned off his phone. Advised how he can apply for a rehearing through the MoJ website.
The reference to having turned off his phone was not consistent with what I was told today, that the tenant felt the phone go off in his pocket at 2:00pm.
However, I have considered the hearing notice which clearly says that the hearing was a phone hearing, and says that “An Adjudicator will contact you on the phone number provided in the application.”.
The Tribunal also sent text message reminders to the tenants on 30 January and 3 February reminding of the hearing. That text message saying in part “This is a reminder that a Tenancy Tribunal Hearing is scheduled for you on 04/02/2025 2:00 PM We will call you on the phone numbers provided.” I note this text message was sent to the tenant at the same phone number I telephoned for the hearing today.
Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied that the tenant was advised that the hearing was a phone hearing, and the tenants failed to take the call when the adjudicator called without reasonable excuse. I cannot see any misinformation on the file suggesting this was a hearing at the Christchurch courthouse.
I cannot see any potential for a miscarriage of justice or substantial wrong, so the rehearing request is dismissed.
I conclude with the following observation.
The effect of the Tribunals decision was to do no more than grant possession of the premises to the landlord. I can see that the tenant remains of the view there are claims they have around the ‘tenancy’ or whatever legal arrangement was in place. The tenants can still pursue those claims, the fact they no longer have possession of the premises does not change that, it just means they are no longer in possession of the premises.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application for rehearing filed by the tenants. A telephone hearing was convened today to consider that rehearing request.

BACKGROUND

In terms of this rehearing request, the background can be summarised succinctly as follows.
The Tribunal received an application from the landlord seeking a possession order.
A telephone hearing was scheduled on 4 February 2025 to consider that application.
The adjudicator (Ms Setefano) telephoned the tenants, but they did not answer, so she proceeded to hear the claim. The landlord did attend the phone hearing as scheduled by way of counsel.
That same day a possession order was granted.
The tenants have applied for a rehearing. The tenants say they attended the Christchurch courthouse, not realising the hearing was a phone hearing.
I convened a telephone hearing today, 1 April 2025, and both parties attended. The purpose of the hearing was only to decide if a rehearing would be granted. TENANTS’S POSITION
The tenants submit that a rehearing should be granted for these reasons: a. The tenants consider they had a rent-to-buy agreement, and that they acted in good faith. The tenants say there was no tenancy. b. The tenants said that they missed the original phone call, and when they did they contacted the Tenancy Tribunal straight away. The tenants say that they went to the courthouse for the hearing. The tenants said they were confused about the matter at the time, and they “just missed the calls within seconds”. The tenant said the phone went off in his pocket, and he says that they were expecting the call, but when I asked for further clarification around that the response was less clear. The tenant said that he phoned the tenancy 0800 number right away. c. The instructions around the hearing arrangements were not clear. RESPONDENT’S POSITION
The Respondent opposes the rehearing request for these reasons: a. A rehearing would not change the outcome. b. The instructions for the hearing were clear.

RELEVANT LAW

Section 105 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 relates to rehearings. Subsection 1 confirms that: The Tribunal shall in all proceedings have the power to order a rehearing of the whole or any part of the proceedings on the ground that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur.
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.”
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.

ANALYSIS

I have set out the relevant law that applies to rehearings above. In short, re- hearings are a safety measure should something have gone wrong with the hearing, normally on a procedural basis, in which case a rehearing can be approved so that the matter then returns to the Tribunal for a further hearing.
I have considered the submissions from the Applicant, and find that no procedural issues have been identified, and I cannot see any potential for a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice to justify a rehearing, for these reasons.
As indicated above, a rehearing cannot be ordered just because a party disagrees with a decision, or considers that the decision was wrong in fact or law. I will address this argument from the tenants further below.
The only basis upon which a rehearing could be ordered, is if there was some procedural issue that arose with the hearing that meant the tenant missed the hearing, and I find there was not.
The tenants position is not entirely clear. On the one hand they say they did not realise it was a phone hearing, on the other they indicated at the hearing today that they were expecting a call.
In the application for rehearing the tenants say: The hearing was phone conference and we believe the paperwork from the Tenancy Tribunal says nothing of a phone conference. Christine and I turned up at the Christchurch Courts for our case at 2pm only to find out after 15 minutes (2:15pm) that it was a phone conference. We both did not know this and believe we were not given the proper information to even attend this case properly...
I note the hearing was scheduled at 2:00pm.
At my hearing today the tenant said that soon after missing the call at 2:00pm, he telephoned the 0800 number. The only record I can find of that call is a note from 3:04pm that day where the call taker records: OP Mark Rahui called upset that he had missed the hearing. He had gone to the court and turned off his phone. Advised how he can apply for a rehearing through the MoJ website.
The reference to having turned off his phone was not consistent with what I was told today, that the tenant felt the phone go off in his pocket at 2:00pm.
However, I have considered the hearing notice which clearly says that the hearing was a phone hearing, and says that “An Adjudicator will contact you on the phone number provided in the application.”.
The Tribunal also sent text message reminders to the tenants on 30 January and 3 February reminding of the hearing. That text message saying in part “This is a reminder that a Tenancy Tribunal Hearing is scheduled for you on 04/02/2025 2:00 PM We will call you on the phone numbers provided.” I note this text message was sent to the tenant at the same phone number I telephoned for the hearing today.
Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied that the tenant was advised that the hearing was a phone hearing, and the tenants failed to take the call when the adjudicator called without reasonable excuse. I cannot see any misinformation on the file suggesting this was a hearing at the Christchurch courthouse.
I cannot see any potential for a miscarriage of justice or substantial wrong, so the rehearing request is dismissed.
I conclude with the following observation.
The effect of the Tribunals decision was to do no more than grant possession of the premises to the landlord. I can see that the tenant remains of the view there are claims they have around the ‘tenancy’ or whatever legal arrangement was in place. The tenants can still pursue those claims, the fact they no longer have possession of the premises does not change that, it just means they are no longer in possession of the premises.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5135589 — Tenancy dispute at 16 Valley Road, Greta Valley, RD 1, Greta Valley 7387

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5135589 — Tenancy dispute at 16 Valley Road, Greta Valley, RD 1, Greta Valley 7387

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LAW

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LAW

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions