What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5147532 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5147532?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5147532?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5147532?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12582528-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5147532 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5147532?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5147532?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5147532?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12582528-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5147532 — Tenancy dispute

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 13 April 2025 the Tribunal made orders.
On 18 August 2025 the tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice had occurred because: a. Since the order was made there had been ongoing issues between the neighbours regarding the garden and parking and walking or driving over each other’s areas. b. That the Tribunal had erred in making factual findings about the neighbour’s garden and when permission for the garden had occurred. c. That the Tribunal had not considered relevant factual details, nor allowed proper cross examination of witnesses before making a factual finding that the tenant had breached the neighbouring tenants’ quiet enjoyment on one occasion by driving onto or over her garden. The law relating to rehearings.
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”.
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. 1 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. 1 Yogeswaran v Doubletree Properties Ltd [2021] NZDC 15704
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. 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 tenant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing. a. The rehearing application and submissions made at the consideration hearing were largely that both the landlord and the Tribunal had an incorrect understanding of the factual situation. This submission is a challenge to the findings of the Tribunal, essentially saying that the Tribunal ‘got it wrong’. Rehearings are not about the decisions made. b. The reasons given by the tenant for filing outside of time did not meet the criteria for filing rehearing outside of time. There was no evidence given that the tenant could not have filed this application earlier. c. The claims that the neighbour has taken the decision as some sort of victory, and is now breaching the tenant’s quiet enjoyment, are not grounds for rehearing. If the tenant considers her neighbours or her neighbours’ visitors are breaching her quiet enjoyment that is a complaint to her landlord and if necessary a new claim to the Tribunal. d. I consider that the tenant was given ample opportunity at the first hearing to explain the facts and challenge facts as stated by her landlord.
My observation is that this neighbour situation requires a sensitive and open- minded approach by the landlord. It appears that this tenant has a genuine complaint about her inability or restriction to use the turning bay and parking space at her tenancy. I would encourage the landlord to go and ‘road test’ the problem with the parking bay and see if the neighbour’s garden does, in fact, make it difficult for the tenant to use her space. If this is the case, then the landlord should reconsider their position in respect of the neighbour’s garden.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 13 April 2025 the Tribunal made orders.
On 18 August 2025 the tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice had occurred because: a. Since the order was made there had been ongoing issues between the neighbours regarding the garden and parking and walking or driving over each other’s areas. b. That the Tribunal had erred in making factual findings about the neighbour’s garden and when permission for the garden had occurred. c. That the Tribunal had not considered relevant factual details, nor allowed proper cross examination of witnesses before making a factual finding that the tenant had breached the neighbouring tenants’ quiet enjoyment on one occasion by driving onto or over her garden. The law relating to rehearings.
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”.
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. 1 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. 1 Yogeswaran v Doubletree Properties Ltd [2021] NZDC 15704
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. 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 tenant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing. a. The rehearing application and submissions made at the consideration hearing were largely that both the landlord and the Tribunal had an incorrect understanding of the factual situation. This submission is a challenge to the findings of the Tribunal, essentially saying that the Tribunal ‘got it wrong’. Rehearings are not about the decisions made. b. The reasons given by the tenant for filing outside of time did not meet the criteria for filing rehearing outside of time. There was no evidence given that the tenant could not have filed this application earlier. c. The claims that the neighbour has taken the decision as some sort of victory, and is now breaching the tenant’s quiet enjoyment, are not grounds for rehearing. If the tenant considers her neighbours or her neighbours’ visitors are breaching her quiet enjoyment that is a complaint to her landlord and if necessary a new claim to the Tribunal. d. I consider that the tenant was given ample opportunity at the first hearing to explain the facts and challenge facts as stated by her landlord.
My observation is that this neighbour situation requires a sensitive and open- minded approach by the landlord. It appears that this tenant has a genuine complaint about her inability or restriction to use the turning bay and parking space at her tenancy. I would encourage the landlord to go and ‘road test’ the problem with the parking bay and see if the neighbour’s garden does, in fact, make it difficult for the tenant to use her space. If this is the case, then the landlord should reconsider their position in respect of the neighbour’s garden.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5147532 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5147532 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions