What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5155261?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5155261?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5155261?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5155261?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12151033-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5155261?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5155261?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5155261?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5155261?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12151033-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

7 Lyndon Place, Manurewa, Auckland 2102 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5155261 — Cleanliness

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The Tribunal order dated 15 May 2025 stands.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 15 May 2025, the Tribunal made an order for the tenant to pay the landlord $769.90 for rubbish removal. The tenant did not attend the hearing.
On 19 May 2025, Neema Ngadja applied for a rehearing on the grounds that she wanted her personal belongings back, as well as the bond. During the rehearing consideration hearing, the tenant said she had moved out of the property into another property earlier in December 2024 and was still moving her things and cleaning this property after her move. She indicated she returned to the property on 21 December 2024 and found she could not get into the property as it had been re-keyed. She said she contacted her housing manager who told her to hand in her keys the following day, 22 December 2024, which she did.
The parties agreed the tenancy formally ended on 23 December 2024.
The tenant did not raise any procedural issues relating to the hearing, nor did she say she had any new evidence available. The Law
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”.
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.”
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.
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.
Also as noted by Judge Christiansen in the District Court appeal of Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC 1993: “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?

Neema Ngadja has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing, as she did not raise any procedural issues relating to the hearing, nor did she say she had any new evidence that was not available at the time of the hearing.
Therefore, the rehearing application is dismissed.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The Tribunal order dated 15 May 2025 stands.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 15 May 2025, the Tribunal made an order for the tenant to pay the landlord $769.90 for rubbish removal. The tenant did not attend the hearing.
On 19 May 2025, Neema Ngadja applied for a rehearing on the grounds that she wanted her personal belongings back, as well as the bond. During the rehearing consideration hearing, the tenant said she had moved out of the property into another property earlier in December 2024 and was still moving her things and cleaning this property after her move. She indicated she returned to the property on 21 December 2024 and found she could not get into the property as it had been re-keyed. She said she contacted her housing manager who told her to hand in her keys the following day, 22 December 2024, which she did.
The parties agreed the tenancy formally ended on 23 December 2024.
The tenant did not raise any procedural issues relating to the hearing, nor did she say she had any new evidence available. The Law
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”.
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.”
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.
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.
Also as noted by Judge Christiansen in the District Court appeal of Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC 1993: “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?

Neema Ngadja has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing, as she did not raise any procedural issues relating to the hearing, nor did she say she had any new evidence that was not available at the time of the hearing.
Therefore, the rehearing application is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5155261 — Cleanliness at 7 Lyndon Place, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5155261 — Cleanliness at 7 Lyndon Place, Manurewa, Auckland 2102

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

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions