What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5224111 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 5224111?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5224111?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5224111?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12153488-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5224111 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 5224111?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5224111?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5224111?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12153488-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5224111 — Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both parties’ names and identifying details.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The stay of proceedings is lifted. The tenancy has terminated because the tenant failed to pay the full payment due on the 10 June 2025 by 5pm.
Possession is granted to the landlord. The landlord can enforce the termination.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held today by telephone.
On the 26 May 2025 I made a conditional termination order. That order required the tenant to pay both the rent and arrears on due dates and times. If the tenant did not make one of the payments on the specified dates and times, then the tenancy would terminate.
The tenant was required to pay $1,200.00 by 5pm on 10 June 2025.
The tenant had the week before paid $700 rather than the $610 ordered so the tenant was $90 ahead on the scheduled repayments.
On the 10 June the tenants only paid $1000 by 5pm. This meant that at 5pm on the 10 June only $1090 had been paid not the $1200.00.
The landlord confirmed by email to the tenant dated 10 June at 5.57pm that as the tenant had not made the full payment by 5pm, then as per the conditional termination order that the tenancy had terminated, and that the landlord would be seeking possession.
The tenant disputed that the tenancy should terminate. The landlord sought an eviction order. That eviction was due to take place in the morning of the 19 June 2025. The tenant filed a rehearing application in the evening of the 18 June 2025 and sought a rehearing and a stay of the termination order until such time as the rehearing application was determined.
I granted a stay of proceedings until the rehearing was determined. I did so to protect the position of both parties. The granting of the stay did not predetermine the outcome of the rehearing application.
The tenant accepts that she has breached the conditional termination order by only paying $1090 rather than $1200 by 5pm, but she says that termination of the tenancy is a manifestly unjust consequence of paying late and this would cause a miscarriage of justice especially as she paid the additional $110.00 later that evening.
The tenant says that her and her husband had family members who were very ill in hospital and that the delay in making the payments on time was caused by waiting for monies to be transferred between bank accounts and as a result of visiting family members in hospital and not keeping track of the time. The tenants also say that they were under enormous pressure and stress at this time. The law relating to rehearings.
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”.
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. 1 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.
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: 1 Yogeswaran v Doubletree Properties Ltd [2021] NZDC 15704 [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. [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: once to the very Tribunal which made it 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 that 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.
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.
As noted by Judge Christiansen in the District Court appeal of Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC. In this Court’s view the Tribunal’s reasons for refusing a rehearing are correct. 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 tenants have failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing. a. The tenants’ grounds for rehearing questions the Tribunal’s decision to grant a conditional termination order requiring the tenancy to pay rent and the debt by a due date and time. This is a ground questioning the outcome/ decision of a hearing, not the process. b. The landlord was entitled to a termination order as at the date of the hearing the rent was more than 21 days in arrears. See s56 and 55(1)(a) RTA. It was my decision to make the conditional termination. c. The tenancy terminated by operation of law when the tenant did not make the full payment on the date and time stated. d. The tenant was made aware both at the hearing and in my order that if the payments were not paid by the date and time they fell due then the tenancy would terminate. e. Whether the tenancy terminated was therefore within the control of the tenant. Whilst the tenant may argue that by paying late termination is unfair, that was the terms of the order. The tenant was aware of the order she admitted that they had breached the order by not paying on time. If the tenant did not want her tenancy to end, then they should have paid on time. f. There is no miscarriage of justice. The law allowed me to make a conditional termination and I did because of persistent rent arrears which were more than 21 days in arrears at the date of hearing. It was fully within the tenant’s control to ensure that the payments were made on time and the conditional termination would lapse.
I do not mean for my decision to sound harsh. I acknowledge the hardship and stress that the tenants have endured over the past few months. I also note that in isolation it may seem petty or unfair to have a tenancy terminate in these circumstances, but the tenants’ submissions do not recognise the fact that this was not an isolated incident of late payment. The landlord had endured months of inconsistent rent payments and missed rent payments. The landlord too has financial commitments and personal commitments and cannot afford to have tenants in the property who are not paying rent in full on time. In short, this tenancy did not end because the tenant missed paying $110.00 by 5pm, it ended because the tenant had a history of rent arrears, and that rent arrears were more than 21 days at the date of the hearing on the 26 May. The conditional order was a ‘last chance’ for the tenants to retain the tenancy, and unfortunately, despite being warned of the repercussions for failing to pay on time, they did not pay on time and the tenancy ended.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5224111 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5224111 — Rent arrears

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

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions