What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5215053 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 5215053?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5215053?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5215053?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12827701-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5215053 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 5215053?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5215053?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5215053?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12827701-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5215053 — Tenancy dispute

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ and landlord’s names and identifying details.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The stay of proceedings has now lapsed. The original order issued by the Tribunal may be enforced.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, which was conducted by teleconference.
On 19 September 2025 the Tribunal made an order determining the tenants’ and landlord’s applications.
On 21 September 2025 the landlord applied for a rehearing. The grounds were detailed in her application. The landlord felt the adjudicator had abused her power, acting against the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. She disagreed with the recording of the evidence, considered that the evidence had been ignored, and the adjudicator was biased. The landlord noted that it was against common law that the adjudicator did not consider compensation with reference to what the tenants had damaged but rather, what the landlord had bought to replace the damaged items for new tenants.
The landlord also felt the adjudicator was rude, a bully, had stopped the landlord talking multiple times, allowed the tenants 90% of the court time, would not listen in the hearing, and ignored her written evidence. Legal framework
Section 105(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the 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.”
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.
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...
In the case of Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC 1993 Judge Christiansen noted: Rehearings are about challenges to processes and procedures and are not about what the adjudicator found or the decisions the adjudicator made.
As the District Court has held, 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.
In Xpert Management Solutions Limited v Bravo [2015] NZDC 1506 the District Court confirmed that a rehearing will not be granted just because a party is unhappy with the decision, or because the applicant has a “desire to take issue with, or express a contrary view on the evidence to that reached by the Tribunal...” So, a rehearing will not be granted to give the party a second opportunity to present their case.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

At the hearing, the landlord explained her reasons further, stating that she felt the adjudicator was helping the tenants. She clarified the facts and stated that the adjudicator had failed to apply the common law. She questioned what pressure the tenants were under, and states they never mentioned that they were under pressure. She provided details concerning the purchase of the drapes and the reason the HRV system was installed. She referred to the tenancy agreement. She felt the adjudicator did not want to listen to her, her evidence, or her submissions. Furthermore, the adjudicator got the facts wrong, and she explained the reasons why.
In response, the tenants referred to the nature of their interaction with the landlord and stated they disputed her comments. They both felt the hearing was fair and they accepted the outcome.
In reply, the landlord stated that the reason for seeking a rehearing was based on the adjudicator making the wrong decision based on the wrong facts. The adjudicator had failed to apply the law to the case, and got many of the facts wrong. She felt the adjudicator had helped the tenants. In fact, the tenants had taken advantage of her. She felt the adjudicator had felt sorry for the tenants as they were new immigrants.
Having considered the evidence and submissions, I find the landlord has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing. My reasons for this finding are set out below.
In this case, I do not find any procedural flaws. Both parties attended the hearing and were heard. The landlord felt she was not given sufficient time at the hearing. However, the hearing was adjourned part-heard, and the landlord was given a further opportunity to provide written submissions after the hearing. The landlord provided her written submissions in accordance with the directions issued in the order. These written submissions were taken into account, and noted in the final order (at paragraph 6).
So, the landlord had an additional chance to put forward further reasons for the Tribunal to consider. Any shortfall in the allocation of time at the hearing were addressed by the landlord being allowed time after the hearing to consider the tenants’ evidence, and provide her reasons in writing. Any matters the landlord felt she did not have the chance to explain at the hearing could have been addressed in her written comments.
I acknowledge the landlord’s dissatisfaction with the overall outcome and some of the conclusions reached by the Tribunal on the evidence. However, as case law has established, a rehearing will not be granted because one party takes a contrary view on the evidence to that reached by the Tribunal. It is open to the Tribunal to reach different conclusions on the evidence presented by the parties. The fact that the Tribunal did not agree with the landlord’s submissions, based on the evidence provided for the hearing, is not sufficient grounds for a rehearing to be granted.
Some of the reasons put forward by the landlord point to unhappiness with the final decision. As the Court has held, a rehearing will not be granted where one party is unhappy with the decision, because it is not a second opportunity to present their case. Something more than a wrong or erroneous decision must be shown for a rehearing to be granted.
Often parties confuse an unfavourable decision with bias. The Tribunal had no reasons to be biased against the landlord. Every precaution was taken to ensure the matter was considered carefully and the decision was delayed so both parties’ positions could be properly understood.
Furthermore, the Tribunal has not abused its power. All it did was assess the evidence and issue a decision based on its findings.
Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, I find that the landlord has not been able to establish that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has, or may have occurred, or is likely to occur. Consequently, the application for rehearing is dismissed.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ and landlord’s names and identifying details.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The stay of proceedings has now lapsed. The original order issued by the Tribunal may be enforced.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, which was conducted by teleconference.
On 19 September 2025 the Tribunal made an order determining the tenants’ and landlord’s applications.
On 21 September 2025 the landlord applied for a rehearing. The grounds were detailed in her application. The landlord felt the adjudicator had abused her power, acting against the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. She disagreed with the recording of the evidence, considered that the evidence had been ignored, and the adjudicator was biased. The landlord noted that it was against common law that the adjudicator did not consider compensation with reference to what the tenants had damaged but rather, what the landlord had bought to replace the damaged items for new tenants.
The landlord also felt the adjudicator was rude, a bully, had stopped the landlord talking multiple times, allowed the tenants 90% of the court time, would not listen in the hearing, and ignored her written evidence. Legal framework
Section 105(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the 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.”
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.
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...
In the case of Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC 1993 Judge Christiansen noted: Rehearings are about challenges to processes and procedures and are not about what the adjudicator found or the decisions the adjudicator made.
As the District Court has held, 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.
In Xpert Management Solutions Limited v Bravo [2015] NZDC 1506 the District Court confirmed that a rehearing will not be granted just because a party is unhappy with the decision, or because the applicant has a “desire to take issue with, or express a contrary view on the evidence to that reached by the Tribunal...” So, a rehearing will not be granted to give the party a second opportunity to present their case.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

At the hearing, the landlord explained her reasons further, stating that she felt the adjudicator was helping the tenants. She clarified the facts and stated that the adjudicator had failed to apply the common law. She questioned what pressure the tenants were under, and states they never mentioned that they were under pressure. She provided details concerning the purchase of the drapes and the reason the HRV system was installed. She referred to the tenancy agreement. She felt the adjudicator did not want to listen to her, her evidence, or her submissions. Furthermore, the adjudicator got the facts wrong, and she explained the reasons why.
In response, the tenants referred to the nature of their interaction with the landlord and stated they disputed her comments. They both felt the hearing was fair and they accepted the outcome.
In reply, the landlord stated that the reason for seeking a rehearing was based on the adjudicator making the wrong decision based on the wrong facts. The adjudicator had failed to apply the law to the case, and got many of the facts wrong. She felt the adjudicator had helped the tenants. In fact, the tenants had taken advantage of her. She felt the adjudicator had felt sorry for the tenants as they were new immigrants.
Having considered the evidence and submissions, I find the landlord has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing. My reasons for this finding are set out below.
In this case, I do not find any procedural flaws. Both parties attended the hearing and were heard. The landlord felt she was not given sufficient time at the hearing. However, the hearing was adjourned part-heard, and the landlord was given a further opportunity to provide written submissions after the hearing. The landlord provided her written submissions in accordance with the directions issued in the order. These written submissions were taken into account, and noted in the final order (at paragraph 6).
So, the landlord had an additional chance to put forward further reasons for the Tribunal to consider. Any shortfall in the allocation of time at the hearing were addressed by the landlord being allowed time after the hearing to consider the tenants’ evidence, and provide her reasons in writing. Any matters the landlord felt she did not have the chance to explain at the hearing could have been addressed in her written comments.
I acknowledge the landlord’s dissatisfaction with the overall outcome and some of the conclusions reached by the Tribunal on the evidence. However, as case law has established, a rehearing will not be granted because one party takes a contrary view on the evidence to that reached by the Tribunal. It is open to the Tribunal to reach different conclusions on the evidence presented by the parties. The fact that the Tribunal did not agree with the landlord’s submissions, based on the evidence provided for the hearing, is not sufficient grounds for a rehearing to be granted.
Some of the reasons put forward by the landlord point to unhappiness with the final decision. As the Court has held, a rehearing will not be granted where one party is unhappy with the decision, because it is not a second opportunity to present their case. Something more than a wrong or erroneous decision must be shown for a rehearing to be granted.
Often parties confuse an unfavourable decision with bias. The Tribunal had no reasons to be biased against the landlord. Every precaution was taken to ensure the matter was considered carefully and the decision was delayed so both parties’ positions could be properly understood.
Furthermore, the Tribunal has not abused its power. All it did was assess the evidence and issue a decision based on its findings.
Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, I find that the landlord has not been able to establish that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has, or may have occurred, or is likely to occur. Consequently, the application for rehearing is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5215053 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5215053 — 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