What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5223553?

The tribunal order states: The application by the tenants for a rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5223553?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5223553?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5223553?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11931748-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5223553?

The tribunal order states: The application by the tenants for a rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5223553?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5223553?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness. Related themes: Property damage, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5223553?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11931748-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

467 Leith Street, North Dunedin, Dunedin 9016 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5223553 — Cleanliness

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

The landlord and two of the tenants attended the hearing.

On 7 May 2025 the Tribunal made an order dismissing the tenants’ application for compensation and exemplary damages and for the tenants to pay the landlord arrears and compensation of $10,166.76, after refund of the bond.

On 13 May 2025 the tenants applied for a rehearing on numerous grounds, not limited to but including: a. Damages were not assessed individually pursuant to section 49A, b. That damage such as to the kitchen vinyl was careless, c. Wall damage was wear and tear, d. They had been charged twice for cleaning costs, e. The adjudicator asked the landlord leading questions, f. The adjudicator did not address all the issues they brought up, g. The witnesses for the landlord were biased, h. The adjudicator was biased towards the landlord and had pre-determined the matter.

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”.

In the District Court judgement of Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, His Honour Judge Touhy confirmed that the words “substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice”, set a high standard, stating: “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. ... 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. 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 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 this 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 High Court in Angelo v Lehr [2022] NZHC 3033 confirmed that it was not a miscarriage of justice to decline a rehearing just because evidence was not considered at the original hearing, when that evidence could have been produced at the original hearing.

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 Jemma Trust v Rutherford (DC North Shore, CIV-2009-044-2056, 11 December 1999), the District Court quoted an extract from the Court of Appeal outlining the relevant considerations: The principles upon which further evidence is admitted are designed to balance the interests of the person seeking to adduce such evidence on the one hand with the interests of the opposite party is on the other. They are also designed to reflect the public interest in ensuring, so far as is possible, that parties put up their best case at trial. Any other approach would be very wasteful of public resources. The conventional requirements are that the further evidence must be fresh, it must be credible and it must be cogent. Evidence is not regarded as fresh if it could with reasonable diligence have been produced at the trial....While the absence of freshness is not an absolute disqualification, the criteria for admission in such circumstances must be very strict. In our view, when the evidence is not fresh it should not be admitted unless the circumstances are exceptional and the grounds compelling.

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 the tenants have failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing: a. The fact that the tenants disagree with the decision is not a ground for a rehearing or to give them a second opportunity to present their case, b. The Tribunal process did not disadvantage the tenants in any way, c. Nor is there any evidence to support that the Adjudicator was in any way biased towards the landlord or predetermined the applications, d. The fact that the Adjudicator asked the landlord and also the tenants questions is in line with the inquisitorial nature of the Tribunal process, e. In making any decision it is for the Adjudicator to determine whose evidence is preferred, f. Both parties provided significant evidence during the hearing, g. The interests of justice require parties to put their best case forward at the hearing and both parties had ample opportunity to do this, h. Although the tenants were entitled to legal representation because of the amount in dispute but for whatever reason chose not to have a representative at the hearing, the evidence supports that during the process they had access to legal advice, i. The tenants have not provided any new evidence which may have changed the outcome.

I consider no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred which justifies a rehearing.

The objective of the Tribunal is to determine expeditiously disputes arising between landlords and tenants.

A rehearing is not an alternative to an appeal. If the tenants are dissatisfied with the decision, then the appropriate course of action would have been for them to appeal the decision.

For the avoidance of doubt the Order of the Tribunal dated 7 May 2025 remains in full force and effect.

Reasons

The landlord and two of the tenants attended the hearing.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

I consider no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred which justifies a rehearing.

The objective of the Tribunal is to determine expeditiously disputes arising between landlords and tenants.

A rehearing is not an alternative to an appeal. If the tenants are dissatisfied with the decision, then the appropriate course of action would have been for them to appeal the decision.

For the avoidance of doubt the Order of the Tribunal dated 7 May 2025 remains in full force and effect.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5223553 — Cleanliness at 467 Leith Street, North Dunedin, Dunedin 9016

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5223553 — Cleanliness at 467 Leith Street, North Dunedin, Dunedin 9016

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions