What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5156094 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5156094?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5156094?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5156094?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13006747-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5156094 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5156094?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5156094?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5156094?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13006747-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

4 Wakefield Street, Tuamarina, RD 3, Blenheim 7273 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5156094 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The stay of proceedings ordered on 28 October 2025 is lifted.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing to consider the tenant rehearing application.
[The tenant/s] has applied for a rehearing of the Tribunal order dated 24 October 2025. A telephone hearing to consider this application was set down for today and has concluded.
The grounds for a rehearing were provided in a document listing eight grounds. At the hearing this list had been compressed to six and verbal submitted by Jordan. There was overlap between two of the claims.
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.
In Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, the District Court 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: [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.
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.

Should a rehearing be granted?

Mr Logan cited several reasons to justify a rehearing. Some were procedural, other pertained to evidence or the actual determination. I have copied some text from his submission below, that related to concerns that might justify a rehearing. Some claims relating to law or fact are more appropriately determined via an appeal process: Hearing Structure Disruption and Difficulty Presenting My Case I attended the second hearing fully prepared with the timeline requested by the adjudicator in the first hearing. However, during the hearing, the focus shifted entirely to breaches and cross- applications. I was not able to present the information I had spent time preparing, and I felt caught off guard. Due to the landlords' disruptive behaviour in the earlier hearing and the shift in hearing format, I was unable to properly explain my position. USB Submission for Timeline and Evidence Structure Prior to the second hearing, I submitted a USB containing my timeline and organised evidence. This was not new evidence, but a format designed to help the adjudicator follow along as I presented my side of the matter. The purpose was to clarify the complexity of the case. However, when the hearing began, the process changed, and I was not given the opportunity to present the timeline as I had prepared. Request for Fair Hearing Process Going Forward As someone with ADHD, I do not consider myself disabled - but I function best with structure and preparation. I now clearly understand the importance of knowing how evidence will be received and whether the Tribunal expects a chronological timeline or a strict focus on claims and breaches. I am fully prepared to present my case properly if granted another opportunity. I respectfully request that the Tribunal allow this rehearing, not to introduce new evidence, but to ensure that the evidence already submitted is fully and fairly considered in context.
The above issues are not exhaustive but capture the essence of the grounds cited for a rehearing that should be considered. I have not detailed here the claimed grounds regarding any landlord misrepresentation or the sequencing of the later counterclaim of the landlord. I consider neither establish grounds for a rehearing.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

The Tribunal deals with self-represented parties and I consider both parties could reflect on the previous experience and be better prepared for any future hearing. That is an obvious reality and not grounds for a second “go” in itself. The desire to not have to ever go through such a process again is also understandable.
The military axiom that “the first casualty is the plan” has some applicability in a Tribunal hearing, insomuch any planned approach or strategy, no matter how detailed, may require immediate revision when faced with real-time or unexpected obstacles.
The challenge during a hearing is ensuring a party is able to make appropriate submissions. That is a challenge that man require the Adjudicator to modify the conduct of the hearing as required. As Mr Jordan acknowledged, he has some challenges in the hearing room environment. This was anticipated prior when he requested permission to use ChapGPT during the hearing. His request is recorded in the Registry file note as saying, “He uses it to help organise his thoughts (almost as a translator if you will). He said he doesn't need a support person or a representative, he would just like to use ChatGPT during the hearing itself to help organise himself and keep things on track.” Permission was denied as the use of AI in such a way during a hearing would not be subject to any oversight and broader use of the AI tool during the hearing was a concern.
I note I would not characterise the landlords as any better prepared or capable in the hearings.
However, what has not been considered in recounting any disadvantage is the significant document and evidence bundles provided in advance of the hearing(s). The order of 24 October 2025 noted at [9]:
The above point is important. I consider both parties struggled at times during the hearing. That is not uncommon and adjustments in real-time to the hearing procedure may have been required and may have disrupted one party. The prior provision by both parties of extensive submissions and evidence, and their subsequent review and consideration, allowed the tenant to structure his claims and evidence prior to the hearing and for me to review this both before and after the hearings, latterly with the benefit of the hearing engagement for further context. Any frustration or regard regarding a perceived inability to present ones case should be balanced with the parallel presentation and consideration of written submissions and evidence before any final determination.
Significant time was allowed for the hearings. An initial pre-hearing case conference was called at first, reflecting the volume and nature of the claims. The scheduled first hearing was adjourned for further hearing time and a second full day scheduled to conclude hearing both applications. The sequence is one reason why the later counterclaim is not considered grounds for a rehearing.
I have reflected on the submissions of Mr Jordan at the hearing to consider his rehearing application. I reviewed the file. While I can accept any unhappiness, that is not grounds for a rehearing, and I do not consider any disadvantage he felt has prevented him (or the landlord) to advance the applications in such a way that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred.
For the above reasons Mr Jordan has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The stay of proceedings ordered on 28 October 2025 is lifted.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing to consider the tenant rehearing application.
[The tenant/s] has applied for a rehearing of the Tribunal order dated 24 October 2025. A telephone hearing to consider this application was set down for today and has concluded.
The grounds for a rehearing were provided in a document listing eight grounds. At the hearing this list had been compressed to six and verbal submitted by Jordan. There was overlap between two of the claims.
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.
In Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, the District Court 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: [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.
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.

Should a rehearing be granted?

Mr Logan cited several reasons to justify a rehearing. Some were procedural, other pertained to evidence or the actual determination. I have copied some text from his submission below, that related to concerns that might justify a rehearing. Some claims relating to law or fact are more appropriately determined via an appeal process: Hearing Structure Disruption and Difficulty Presenting My Case I attended the second hearing fully prepared with the timeline requested by the adjudicator in the first hearing. However, during the hearing, the focus shifted entirely to breaches and cross- applications. I was not able to present the information I had spent time preparing, and I felt caught off guard. Due to the landlords' disruptive behaviour in the earlier hearing and the shift in hearing format, I was unable to properly explain my position. USB Submission for Timeline and Evidence Structure Prior to the second hearing, I submitted a USB containing my timeline and organised evidence. This was not new evidence, but a format designed to help the adjudicator follow along as I presented my side of the matter. The purpose was to clarify the complexity of the case. However, when the hearing began, the process changed, and I was not given the opportunity to present the timeline as I had prepared. Request for Fair Hearing Process Going Forward As someone with ADHD, I do not consider myself disabled - but I function best with structure and preparation. I now clearly understand the importance of knowing how evidence will be received and whether the Tribunal expects a chronological timeline or a strict focus on claims and breaches. I am fully prepared to present my case properly if granted another opportunity. I respectfully request that the Tribunal allow this rehearing, not to introduce new evidence, but to ensure that the evidence already submitted is fully and fairly considered in context.
The above issues are not exhaustive but capture the essence of the grounds cited for a rehearing that should be considered. I have not detailed here the claimed grounds regarding any landlord misrepresentation or the sequencing of the later counterclaim of the landlord. I consider neither establish grounds for a rehearing.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

The Tribunal deals with self-represented parties and I consider both parties could reflect on the previous experience and be better prepared for any future hearing. That is an obvious reality and not grounds for a second “go” in itself. The desire to not have to ever go through such a process again is also understandable.
The military axiom that “the first casualty is the plan” has some applicability in a Tribunal hearing, insomuch any planned approach or strategy, no matter how detailed, may require immediate revision when faced with real-time or unexpected obstacles.
The challenge during a hearing is ensuring a party is able to make appropriate submissions. That is a challenge that man require the Adjudicator to modify the conduct of the hearing as required. As Mr Jordan acknowledged, he has some challenges in the hearing room environment. This was anticipated prior when he requested permission to use ChapGPT during the hearing. His request is recorded in the Registry file note as saying, “He uses it to help organise his thoughts (almost as a translator if you will). He said he doesn't need a support person or a representative, he would just like to use ChatGPT during the hearing itself to help organise himself and keep things on track.” Permission was denied as the use of AI in such a way during a hearing would not be subject to any oversight and broader use of the AI tool during the hearing was a concern.
I note I would not characterise the landlords as any better prepared or capable in the hearings.
However, what has not been considered in recounting any disadvantage is the significant document and evidence bundles provided in advance of the hearing(s). The order of 24 October 2025 noted at [9]:
The above point is important. I consider both parties struggled at times during the hearing. That is not uncommon and adjustments in real-time to the hearing procedure may have been required and may have disrupted one party. The prior provision by both parties of extensive submissions and evidence, and their subsequent review and consideration, allowed the tenant to structure his claims and evidence prior to the hearing and for me to review this both before and after the hearings, latterly with the benefit of the hearing engagement for further context. Any frustration or regard regarding a perceived inability to present ones case should be balanced with the parallel presentation and consideration of written submissions and evidence before any final determination.
Significant time was allowed for the hearings. An initial pre-hearing case conference was called at first, reflecting the volume and nature of the claims. The scheduled first hearing was adjourned for further hearing time and a second full day scheduled to conclude hearing both applications. The sequence is one reason why the later counterclaim is not considered grounds for a rehearing.
I have reflected on the submissions of Mr Jordan at the hearing to consider his rehearing application. I reviewed the file. While I can accept any unhappiness, that is not grounds for a rehearing, and I do not consider any disadvantage he felt has prevented him (or the landlord) to advance the applications in such a way that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred.
For the above reasons Mr Jordan has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5156094 — Tenancy dispute at 4 Wakefield Street, Tuamarina, RD 3, Blenheim 7273

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5156094 — Tenancy dispute at 4 Wakefield Street, Tuamarina, RD 3, Blenheim 7273

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should a rehearing be granted?

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Should a rehearing be granted?

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions