What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5158272 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 5158272?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5158272?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5158272?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12307917-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5158272 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 5158272?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5158272?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5158272?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12307917-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5158272 — 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 request for a rehearing.
On 30 May 2025, the Tribunal made an order dismissing the Landlords application.
On 3 June 2025, Ms Rabone applied for a rehearing on the grounds that she was very unwell, unable to attend the meeting or send her colleague the link or answer her work phone.
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 Ms Rabone has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
On the day of the scheduled hearing, Ms Rabone did not appear in the virtual waiting room for the video hearing. The Tribunal attempted to contact Ms Rabone on three occasions using the telephone numbers provided in the application—specifically, a mobile number and a landline. The Tribunal reviewed the file at the time of the hearing and confirmed that no updates had been made to the contact information. As there was no appearance by Ms Rabone and no response to the Tribunal’s calls, the hearing was concluded in Ms Rabone’s absence.
Following the hearing, the Tribunal received a message from Ms Rabone’s colleague, Ms Lynley Horne, indicating that she had been waiting for other participants to join the video hearing.
In her rehearing request dated 3 June 2025, Ms Rabone stated that she had been unwell on the day of the hearing and was therefore unable to answer her work telephone or forward the video link to her colleague. Ms Horne, however, indicated that she had access to the video hearing and had been waiting for others to join. During the hearing, Ms Rabone submitted that Ms Horne had access to her email account; however, no evidence was provided by Ms Horne explaining how she accessed the hearing link or the circumstances under which she was waiting. The evidence presented by Ms Rabone appeared inconsistent which could have been clarified by Ms Horne. Further, Ms Rabone had the opportunity since the hearing to clarify these matters with Ms Horne before she submitted her application for a rehearing, however the reasons in the application did not reflect this.
Additionally, the Tribunal notes that two contact numbers were provided by the Landlord, neither of which was answered at the time of the hearing. While the Tribunal accepts that Ms Rabone may have been unable to respond via her work mobile due to illness, no explanation has been provided regarding the unanswered landline.
For these reasons the claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the request for a rehearing.

On 30 May 2025, the Tribunal made an order dismissing the Landlords application.

On 3 June 2025, Ms Rabone applied for a rehearing on the grounds that she was very unwell, unable to attend the meeting or send her colleague the link or answer her work phone.

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 Ms Rabone has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

On the day of the scheduled hearing, Ms Rabone did not appear in the virtual waiting room for the video hearing. The Tribunal attempted to contact Ms Rabone on three occasions using the telephone numbers provided in the application—specifically, a mobile number and a landline. The Tribunal reviewed the file at the time of the hearing and confirmed that no updates had been made to the contact information. As there was no appearance by Ms Rabone and no response to the Tribunal’s calls, the hearing was concluded in Ms Rabone’s absence.

Following the hearing, the Tribunal received a message from Ms Rabone’s colleague, Ms Lynley Horne, indicating that she had been waiting for other participants to join the video hearing.

In her rehearing request dated 3 June 2025, Ms Rabone stated that she had been unwell on the day of the hearing and was therefore unable to answer her work telephone or forward the video link to her colleague. Ms Horne, however, indicated that she had access to the video hearing and had been waiting for others to join. During the hearing, Ms Rabone submitted that Ms Horne had access to her email account; however, no evidence was provided by Ms Horne explaining how she accessed the hearing link or the circumstances under which she was waiting. The evidence presented by Ms Rabone appeared inconsistent which could have been clarified by Ms Horne. Further, Ms Rabone had the opportunity since the hearing to clarify these matters with Ms Horne before she submitted her application for a rehearing, however the reasons in the application did not reflect this.

Additionally, the Tribunal notes that two contact numbers were provided by the Landlord, neither of which was answered at the time of the hearing. While the Tribunal accepts that Ms Rabone may have been unable to respond via her work mobile due to illness, no explanation has been provided regarding the unanswered landline.

For these reasons the claim is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5158272 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5158272 — 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