What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5209611 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5209611?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5209611?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5209611?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12422398-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5209611 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5209611?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5209611?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5209611?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12422398-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 4, 23 Mataura Place, Clover Park, Auckland 2019 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5209611 — Rent arrears

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Mr Padayachi, the landlord, his partner, Ms Chand as support person and Ms Shandil, the tenant, all attended the teleconference hearing.
On 9 July 2025 the Tribunal made an order dismissing Mr Padayachi’s application for rent arrears, compensation, disposal of goods (this claim was withdrawn at the hearing) and reimbursement of the filing fee.
On 11 July 2025, Mr Padayachi applied for a rehearing on the grounds that he thought it was to be a face-to-face hearing so had printed his evidence in hard copy for a court hearing and that he would like another chance to provide a corrected rent summary. Along with his rehearing application, Mr Padayachi provided a new rent summary and a lot of evidence for his compensation claim. He also discussed his claim against the tenant in some detail in his rehearing application.
At the rehearing application consideration hearing, Mr Padayachi said he made a mistake with his rent summary and wanted a rehearing to have the Tribunal assess his new rent summary. He acknowledged he had been given another chance to provide an updated rent summary from his original rent summary, pursuant to my direction dated 30 June 2025, prior to the hearing, and had done so, but the figures he put in it were incorrect. My Padayachi also acknowledged he had received a Notice of Hearing before the hearing which indicated the hearing would be by phone on 9 July 2025 and said that he could send any further evidence to remote.tenancy@justice.govt.nz before the hearing.
Ms Shandil, the tenant, who had not attended the original hearing, said she was willing to negotiate directly with Mr Padayachi about his claims, outside of the Tribunal proceedings. She did not have any specific comment about Mr Padayachi’s rehearing application outside of this. 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?

For the following reasons [The landlord/s] has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing: a. Mr Padayachi acknowledged receiving a Notice of hearing before the hearing indicating the hearing would be by phone and providing him with an email address to which he could send any further evidence before the hearing. He did not send in any evidence such as photographs or inspection reports to support his compensation claims. He provided a lot of this evidence relating to compensation along with his rehearing application, but all of this evidence could have been provided by him before the original hearing, and yet was not. This was not new evidence that was not available for the original hearing. b. Mr Padayachi acknowledged being given a chance to update his rent summary from his original rent summary, pursuant to my direction dated 30 June 2025 that he was to provide a complete and updated rent summary before the hearing. He took this opportunity and provided an updated rent summary but the information in the rent summary was incorrect. It is a party’s responsibility to ensure the evidence they provide is correct and supports their claim. c. Mr Padayachi did not assert any procedural issues with the original hearing in his rehearing application.
As such, I dismiss Mr Padayachi’s rehearing application.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Mr Padayachi, the landlord, his partner, Ms Chand as support person and Ms Shandil, the tenant, all attended the teleconference hearing.
On 9 July 2025 the Tribunal made an order dismissing Mr Padayachi’s application for rent arrears, compensation, disposal of goods (this claim was withdrawn at the hearing) and reimbursement of the filing fee.
On 11 July 2025, Mr Padayachi applied for a rehearing on the grounds that he thought it was to be a face-to-face hearing so had printed his evidence in hard copy for a court hearing and that he would like another chance to provide a corrected rent summary. Along with his rehearing application, Mr Padayachi provided a new rent summary and a lot of evidence for his compensation claim. He also discussed his claim against the tenant in some detail in his rehearing application.
At the rehearing application consideration hearing, Mr Padayachi said he made a mistake with his rent summary and wanted a rehearing to have the Tribunal assess his new rent summary. He acknowledged he had been given another chance to provide an updated rent summary from his original rent summary, pursuant to my direction dated 30 June 2025, prior to the hearing, and had done so, but the figures he put in it were incorrect. My Padayachi also acknowledged he had received a Notice of Hearing before the hearing which indicated the hearing would be by phone on 9 July 2025 and said that he could send any further evidence to remote.tenancy@justice.govt.nz before the hearing.
Ms Shandil, the tenant, who had not attended the original hearing, said she was willing to negotiate directly with Mr Padayachi about his claims, outside of the Tribunal proceedings. She did not have any specific comment about Mr Padayachi’s rehearing application outside of this. 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?

For the following reasons [The landlord/s] has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing: a. Mr Padayachi acknowledged receiving a Notice of hearing before the hearing indicating the hearing would be by phone and providing him with an email address to which he could send any further evidence before the hearing. He did not send in any evidence such as photographs or inspection reports to support his compensation claims. He provided a lot of this evidence relating to compensation along with his rehearing application, but all of this evidence could have been provided by him before the original hearing, and yet was not. This was not new evidence that was not available for the original hearing. b. Mr Padayachi acknowledged being given a chance to update his rent summary from his original rent summary, pursuant to my direction dated 30 June 2025 that he was to provide a complete and updated rent summary before the hearing. He took this opportunity and provided an updated rent summary but the information in the rent summary was incorrect. It is a party’s responsibility to ensure the evidence they provide is correct and supports their claim. c. Mr Padayachi did not assert any procedural issues with the original hearing in his rehearing application.
As such, I dismiss Mr Padayachi’s rehearing application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5209611 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 4, 23 Mataura Place, Clover Park, Auckland 2019

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5209611 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat 4, 23 Mataura Place, Clover Park, Auckland 2019

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

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions