What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5223751 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants’ names and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 5223751?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5223751?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5223751?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13059939-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5223751 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants’ names and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 5223751?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5223751?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5223751?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13059939-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

24 Hooten Place, Oteha, Auckland 0632 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5223751 — Boarding House

Order

The tenants’ names and identifying details must not be published.
The landlord’s application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

This is an application for rehearing of the Tribunal’s decision dated 8 November 2026. 1
The landlord appeared for himself.
[Name of one of the tenants] attended the hearing for the tenants with a support person.
A Mandarin interpreter assisted the Tribunal and the parties. 1 I heard this matter at the North Shore District Court on 29 January 2026.
In its original decision, the Tribunal made an order that the landlord pay the tenants $8,971.50 for breaches including failing to lodge the bond, unlawfully entering the premises, harassing the tenants, and issuing a retaliatory notice. The landlord’s application for rehearing
Mr Li filed his application in the North Shore District Court on 19 November 2025 stating: I have got a very important evidence of my case after last hearing which would have materially affected the decision. I have witness who can provide the evidence of this case.
During the hearing, the landlord emailed the Tribunal a signed statement from his proposed witness, Siyuan Yang. The witness was mentioned several times in the substantive hearing. She lived at the property address and had a bedroom upstairs on the same level as the landlord’s parents who also lived at the property. The statement says: 2
During the period from approximately March 2025 to April 2025, two other tenants resided in the downstairs area of the property.
During this period, the downstairs tenants and I shared the downstairs kitchen, living room, and garage. The garage was primarily used because the washing machine is located there.
As a result of the shared use of these common areas, I encountered the downstairs tenants in the kitchen approximately twice per day.
In addition, the downstairs tenants occasionally entered and exited the property through the front entrance, which resulted in further encounters in the downstairs living room. Relevance of the proposed evidence and background
Mr Li’s proposed evidence is relevant to the issue of Tribunal’s jurisdiction, which Mr Li has challenged from the outset.
The issue of jurisdiction was originally heard by video hearing on 24 June 2025.
The Tribunal explained the issue for consideration as follows: 3 2 On 28 November 2025, the Tribunal directed the landlord to file and serve an affidavit of his proposed witness’s evidence by 16 January 2026 and a memorandum setting out the reasons he did not call the witness at the substantive hearing. The Tribunal did not receive either document. Mr Li says he emailed the witness statement to the Tribunal a week before the hearing. 3 In its decision dated 12 July 2025. The challenge to jurisdiction
The landlord submits that the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) does not apply to the purported tenancy and that therefore the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the tenants’ claims because s 5(1)(n) of the RTA applies. That provision excludes the Act where the premises, not being a boarding house, continue to be used, during the tenancy, principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the owner of the premises or by any member of the landlord’s or owner’s family.
At the hearing, the landlord relied on a floor plan setting out an “exclusive tenant area”, and a “shared area”, which did not include much of the main house including the main living area and kitchen.
However, after the hearing, the landlord filed submissions stating that the tenants had access to the main living area and kitchen.
Given the late-filed material, I reserved my decision on jurisdiction but provided the parties with an explanation of the legal principles, stating that the main issues were: 4 a. What part of the house, the premises comprised? b. Whether, having regard to the premises, the arrangement in respect to that premises is excluded by s 5(1)(n).
In the substantive decision I found the Tribunal did have jurisdiction. I did not find the landlord’s evidence persuasive, finding : Findings and conclusion
The landlord’s late-filed evidence was not consistent with his evidence at the hearing. It was an “improvement” designed to strengthen his assertion that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction. Nor did I find the landlord’s initial evidence persuasive, particularly in light of the circumstances that existed at the house. Legal principles
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 4 Ibid at [18]. where there is new evidence that was not reasonably available at the first hearing if it could have affected the outcome.
In this case, Mr Li’s case is grounded on new evidence. In that regard, The Court of Appeal in Rae v International Insurance Brokers explained the principles as follows: 5 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 parties 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. In addition, it will need to pass the tests of credibility and cogency.
The District Court has applied Rae in considering a tenancy appeal. 6 Submissions
At the rehearing consideration hearing, the Tribunal asked Mr Li why he had not called his proposed witness, Ms Yang, at the last hearing. He said that because he didn’t live in the premises, it was only when he spoke to her about two weeks after the hearing that he realised Ms Yang could give evidence that would assist his case.
The tenant who attended rejected the accuracy of Ms Yang’s proposed evidence. Discussion and findings
At the trial itself the tenants spoke about encountering Ms Yang. That was only natural given she lived at the property and according to the tenants also used the scullery, which was the small kitchen the tenants used (rather than the large main kitchen).
In its decision after the 24 June 2025 jurisdiction hearing, the Tribunal clearly laid out the factual issues for deciding jurisdiction. Whether the tenants accessed the main kitchen and living area was clearly a live issue. It was obvious well before the substantive hearing that Ms Yang who lived in the property was a potential witness to 5 Rae v International Insurance Brokers (Nelson Malborough) Ltd [1998] 3 NZLR 190 at 193-194. 6 Bruce Daniel as Trustee for Jemma Trust v Nicole Rutherford CIV-2009-044-002056 speak to and call as a witness if her evidence supported the landlord’s case I this regard.
I conclude that the landlord’s proposed evidence was evidence that could with reasonable diligence have been produced at trial.
There are no exceptional or compelling reasons to admit the evidence in the circumstances, nor any other matter that indicates the Tribunal’s decision is or may lead to injustice or a miscarriage.
The proposed witness is associated with the landlord and his parents who also live at the property. She is the landlord’s parents flatmate. She is not an independent witness. The proposed evidence consists of the witness’s recollection of prior events. The tenants contest the credibility of the evidence. The proposed evidence is not objective evidence such as a contemporaneous photograph. Conclusion
The landlord’s proposed evidence is not fresh, and it is not cogent.
I am not satisfied that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur by refusing a rehearing.
The landlord’s application for a rehearing is dismissed.

Order

The tenants’ names and identifying details must not be published.
The landlord’s application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

This is an application for rehearing of the Tribunal’s decision dated 8 November 2026. 1
The landlord appeared for himself.
[Name of one of the tenants] attended the hearing for the tenants with a support person.
A Mandarin interpreter assisted the Tribunal and the parties. 1 I heard this matter at the North Shore District Court on 29 January 2026.
In its original decision, the Tribunal made an order that the landlord pay the tenants $8,971.50 for breaches including failing to lodge the bond, unlawfully entering the premises, harassing the tenants, and issuing a retaliatory notice. The landlord’s application for rehearing
Mr Li filed his application in the North Shore District Court on 19 November 2025 stating: I have got a very important evidence of my case after last hearing which would have materially affected the decision. I have witness who can provide the evidence of this case.
During the hearing, the landlord emailed the Tribunal a signed statement from his proposed witness, Siyuan Yang. The witness was mentioned several times in the substantive hearing. She lived at the property address and had a bedroom upstairs on the same level as the landlord’s parents who also lived at the property. The statement says: 2
During the period from approximately March 2025 to April 2025, two other tenants resided in the downstairs area of the property.
During this period, the downstairs tenants and I shared the downstairs kitchen, living room, and garage. The garage was primarily used because the washing machine is located there.
As a result of the shared use of these common areas, I encountered the downstairs tenants in the kitchen approximately twice per day.
In addition, the downstairs tenants occasionally entered and exited the property through the front entrance, which resulted in further encounters in the downstairs living room. Relevance of the proposed evidence and background
Mr Li’s proposed evidence is relevant to the issue of Tribunal’s jurisdiction, which Mr Li has challenged from the outset.
The issue of jurisdiction was originally heard by video hearing on 24 June 2025.
The Tribunal explained the issue for consideration as follows: 3 2 On 28 November 2025, the Tribunal directed the landlord to file and serve an affidavit of his proposed witness’s evidence by 16 January 2026 and a memorandum setting out the reasons he did not call the witness at the substantive hearing. The Tribunal did not receive either document. Mr Li says he emailed the witness statement to the Tribunal a week before the hearing. 3 In its decision dated 12 July 2025. The challenge to jurisdiction
The landlord submits that the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) does not apply to the purported tenancy and that therefore the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the tenants’ claims because s 5(1)(n) of the RTA applies. That provision excludes the Act where the premises, not being a boarding house, continue to be used, during the tenancy, principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the owner of the premises or by any member of the landlord’s or owner’s family.
At the hearing, the landlord relied on a floor plan setting out an “exclusive tenant area”, and a “shared area”, which did not include much of the main house including the main living area and kitchen.
However, after the hearing, the landlord filed submissions stating that the tenants had access to the main living area and kitchen.
Given the late-filed material, I reserved my decision on jurisdiction but provided the parties with an explanation of the legal principles, stating that the main issues were: 4 a. What part of the house, the premises comprised? b. Whether, having regard to the premises, the arrangement in respect to that premises is excluded by s 5(1)(n).
In the substantive decision I found the Tribunal did have jurisdiction. I did not find the landlord’s evidence persuasive, finding : Findings and conclusion
The landlord’s late-filed evidence was not consistent with his evidence at the hearing. It was an “improvement” designed to strengthen his assertion that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction. Nor did I find the landlord’s initial evidence persuasive, particularly in light of the circumstances that existed at the house. Legal principles
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 4 Ibid at [18]. where there is new evidence that was not reasonably available at the first hearing if it could have affected the outcome.
In this case, Mr Li’s case is grounded on new evidence. In that regard, The Court of Appeal in Rae v International Insurance Brokers explained the principles as follows: 5 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 parties 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. In addition, it will need to pass the tests of credibility and cogency.
The District Court has applied Rae in considering a tenancy appeal. 6 Submissions
At the rehearing consideration hearing, the Tribunal asked Mr Li why he had not called his proposed witness, Ms Yang, at the last hearing. He said that because he didn’t live in the premises, it was only when he spoke to her about two weeks after the hearing that he realised Ms Yang could give evidence that would assist his case.
The tenant who attended rejected the accuracy of Ms Yang’s proposed evidence. Discussion and findings
At the trial itself the tenants spoke about encountering Ms Yang. That was only natural given she lived at the property and according to the tenants also used the scullery, which was the small kitchen the tenants used (rather than the large main kitchen).
In its decision after the 24 June 2025 jurisdiction hearing, the Tribunal clearly laid out the factual issues for deciding jurisdiction. Whether the tenants accessed the main kitchen and living area was clearly a live issue. It was obvious well before the substantive hearing that Ms Yang who lived in the property was a potential witness to 5 Rae v International Insurance Brokers (Nelson Malborough) Ltd [1998] 3 NZLR 190 at 193-194. 6 Bruce Daniel as Trustee for Jemma Trust v Nicole Rutherford CIV-2009-044-002056 speak to and call as a witness if her evidence supported the landlord’s case I this regard.
I conclude that the landlord’s proposed evidence was evidence that could with reasonable diligence have been produced at trial.
There are no exceptional or compelling reasons to admit the evidence in the circumstances, nor any other matter that indicates the Tribunal’s decision is or may lead to injustice or a miscarriage.
The proposed witness is associated with the landlord and his parents who also live at the property. She is the landlord’s parents flatmate. She is not an independent witness. The proposed evidence consists of the witness’s recollection of prior events. The tenants contest the credibility of the evidence. The proposed evidence is not objective evidence such as a contemporaneous photograph. Conclusion
The landlord’s proposed evidence is not fresh, and it is not cogent.
I am not satisfied that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur by refusing a rehearing.
The landlord’s application for a rehearing is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5223751 — Boarding House at 24 Hooten Place, Oteha, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5223751 — Boarding House at 24 Hooten Place, Oteha, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions