What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5150033 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 5150033?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5150033?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5150033?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11926118-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5150033 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 5150033?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5150033?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5150033?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11926118-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5150033 — 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 by telephone.
On 21 April 2025 the Tribunal made an order for refund of bond, general damages and reimbursement of the filing fee.
On 1 May 2025, Samual Ashley Noonan applied (out of time) for a rehearing on the grounds that he had failed to receive notification of the hearing.
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 Samual Ashley Noonan has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
The landlord said that he had did not receive any correspondence from the Tribunal prior to receiving the order itself (by email).
The tenants had made it clear in a text exchange (6 January 2025) with the landlord prior to making their application that they intended to apply to the Tribunal to obtain an order that the landlord return their bond which he was personally holding. Therefore, the landlord was on notice that a Tribunal hearing was to be expected.
The contact details provided for the landlord on the initial application were the same as those provided by the landlord himself on his application for re- hearing.
Tribunal records show that the landlord was sent a message to confirm that an application had been received on 29 January 2025. This was sent by both email and text message
A Notice of Hearing was then sent by email on 25 February 2025 with a text message also sent at the same time to alert the recipient.
The order itself was sent by email on 21 April 2025 with a text message also being sent on the same date. The landlord received the order via email.
The landlord received the emailed order confirming that a re-hearing consideration hearing was to be set down.
The landlord confirmed that he received the emailed notice of hearing in relation to the rehearing consideration hearing.
He said he did not receive any text reminders and confirmed that his phone was set to receive text messages only from known numbers.
The fact that a party has set their phone up so as to not receive texts from unknown numbers is not grounds for a rehearing.
The explanation provided, as to why some of the Tribunal correspondence may not have been received by email when other correspondence was received, was that it may have gone to junk.
The fact that an email goes to junk does not mean that it was not received by a party for the purposes of service.
In any case, it seems unusual and unlikely that some emails from the Tribunal would have gone to junk but the initial order itself, the order granting the re- hearing consideration hearing and the notice of hearing in relation to the re- hearing consideration hearing did not go to junk and were received by the landlord in the usual way.
All correspondence was sent via the same methods and through the same system.
In these circumstances, grounds for a rehearing have not been established and the application must be dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.

On 21 April 2025 the Tribunal made an order for refund of bond, general damages and reimbursement of the filing fee.

On 1 May 2025, Samual Ashley Noonan applied (out of time) for a rehearing on the grounds that he had failed to receive notification of the hearing.

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 Samual Ashley Noonan has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

The landlord said that he had did not receive any correspondence from the Tribunal prior to receiving the order itself (by email).

The tenants had made it clear in a text exchange (6 January 2025) with the landlord prior to making their application that they intended to apply to the Tribunal to obtain an order that the landlord return their bond which he was personally holding. Therefore, the landlord was on notice that a Tribunal hearing was to be expected.

The contact details provided for the landlord on the initial application were the same as those provided by the landlord himself on his application for re- hearing.

Tribunal records show that the landlord was sent a message to confirm that an application had been received on 29 January 2025. This was sent by both email and text message

A Notice of Hearing was then sent by email on 25 February 2025 with a text message also sent at the same time to alert the recipient.

The order itself was sent by email on 21 April 2025 with a text message also being sent on the same date. The landlord received the order via email.

The landlord received the emailed order confirming that a re-hearing consideration hearing was to be set down.

The landlord confirmed that he received the emailed notice of hearing in relation to the rehearing consideration hearing.

He said he did not receive any text reminders and confirmed that his phone was set to receive text messages only from known numbers.

The fact that a party has set their phone up so as to not receive texts from unknown numbers is not grounds for a rehearing.

The explanation provided, as to why some of the Tribunal correspondence may not have been received by email when other correspondence was received, was that it may have gone to junk.

The fact that an email goes to junk does not mean that it was not received by a party for the purposes of service.

In any case, it seems unusual and unlikely that some emails from the Tribunal would have gone to junk but the initial order itself, the order granting the re- hearing consideration hearing and the notice of hearing in relation to the re- hearing consideration hearing did not go to junk and were received by the landlord in the usual way.

All correspondence was sent via the same methods and through the same system.

In these circumstances, grounds for a rehearing have not been established and the application must be dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5150033 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5150033 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions