What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5239831 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details

How much money was awarded in case 5239831?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5239831?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5239831?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12333417-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5239831 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details

How much money was awarded in case 5239831?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5239831?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5239831?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12333417-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5239831 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details and the tenancy address.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Ms Harris-Pereniki, the tenant, and [The landlord’s representative], representing the landlord, both attended the teleconference rehearing consideration hearing.
On 11 June 2025, the Tribunal made an order striking out the tenant’s application on the grounds that the matters had already been adjudicated, or could have been the subject of the earlier application filed with the Tribunal by the tenant.
On 12 June 2025, the tenant applied for a rehearing indicating that significant procedural and evidential issues affected the outcome of the original hearing and she was not given a fair opportunity to present her case. She said the grounds for her rehearing application included that: a. She contacted Tenancy Services and was told the issues in her current case, although mentioned in her first case, were still acceptable. b. That she had not been told she could request an adjournment the same day as the hearing, in regard to the hearing of her first application. c. That she was coerced to withdraw her application by the landlord for $100.00 and this stress contributed to her inability to attend the hearing of her first application, along with a sick child. d. That she was told by Tenancy Services that she could provide hard copies of evidence on the day of the hearing but was unable to have this considered as the hearing did not proceed to hear evidence. e. That she only mentioned cockroaches in her first application for context and not for compensation.
During the rehearing consideration hearing, the tenant referred additionally to ‘new evidence’ that was not available at the time of the hearing, namely around 20 documents that she had uploaded to the application on 25 August 2025, 2 days prior to the rehearing consideration, and what she said were 7 witness statements that she had not been able to upload but were relevant.
I pointed out to the tenant that the 20 or so documents she uploaded to the application on 25 August 2025 as ‘new evidence’ were documents that pre- dated the filing of her application 5239831 on 17 April 2025.
In one of the tenant’s new documents uploaded by her on 25 August 2025, she referred to unlawful entry and breach of quiet enjoyment by the landlord, neither of which were claimed by the tenant in her application 5239831. When asked about this, the tenant said that she had not been able to edit her application to add the additional new claims of unlawful entry and breach of quiet enjoyment earlier.
The tenant also said she was not aware that she could have applied for a rehearing of the Tribunal order in relation to her first application . When I pointed out that the Tribunal order dated 13 February 2025 contained specific information for parties on how to apply for a rehearing or file an appeal, the tenant said she had not received the Tribunal order dated 13 February 2025 until 2 months later, because it had been sent to the incorrect email. When I asked the tenant why she had not followed up on an order after the hearing of her first application sooner than 2 months, she said she had been misinformed by agencies such as Tenancy Services and the Community Law Centre about this.
The landlord said they have dealt with the tenant at her same email during her tenancy, without any problems so they did not understand why she would not have received the Tribunal order dated 13 February 2025 in application 4885841. The landlord said they also told the tenant the result of the hearing of the tenant’s first application right after the hearing when they received the order. 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, Duches Harris-Pereniki has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing: a. It is up to parties in Tribunal applications to obtain appropriate legal and other advice about their claims and about the process in a claim being heard, including options for adjournments. I note the tenant had requested and been granted an adjournment earlier in her first application 4885841 and so was aware of the process for doing so. b. There is new information mentioned in the tenant’s rehearing application, such as claims for unlawful entry and breach of quiet enjoyment and intimidation by the landlord, for example, which were not claimed in the tenant’s original application 5239831 before it was struck out. These claims cannot be considered here, as they were not claimed in the initial application and were not the subject of the Tribunal order striking out application 5239831. I note the tenant did not mention any intimidation by the landlord at the start of the hearing of application 5239831 when the preliminary issue was discussed as to whether the tenant’s application issues had already been adjudicated or could have been dealt with in her first application 4885841. The first mention of this is in the tenant’s rehearing application. c. The ‘hard copy’ evidence referred to by the tenant that she said was not considered by the Tribunal at the hearing, was not discussed as the Tribunal had to determine the preliminary matter of whether the issues had already been adjudicated or could have been dealt with in the tenant’s first application, and then the application was struck out. As the application was struck out, there could be no hearing of any evidence after this. d. The ‘new evidence’ provided by the tenant, which was uploaded on 25 August 2025 to the application 2 days prior to the rehearing consideration hearing, was evidence that pre-dated the tenant filing application 5239831 on 17 April 2025 and so was available prior to the hearing of application 5239831. As such, this evidence cannot be considered as ‘new evidence’ not available at the time of the hearing. e. As regards the tenant’s claim that she was not aware of the rehearing process after her first application was dismissed, the Tribunal order dated 13 February 2025 in application 4885841 specifically sets out the rehearing and appeal process. The tenant said she did not receive this Tribunal order until 2 months after the hearing. The tenant was clearly aware of the hearing date, as she was contacted by the Registrar on the hearing date, as acknowledged by her, and could have followed up with the Court about the hearing result, had she not received the order initially. Further, I accept the landlord’s evidence as likely that they discussed the result of the hearing of the tenant’s first application directly with the tenant after they received the order. As such, I find it likely that the tenant was aware that her first application had been dismissed and did not take steps to apply for a rehearing then. f. As regards the tenant’s comment that the cockroaches were mentioned by her as context not as a claim in her first application 4885841, this has been dealt with in the Tribunal’s order dated 11 June 2025 in application 5239831 and is not considered a procedural issue relevant to the rehearing application, nor is it new evidence that was not available at the hearing time.
Therefore, based on the above reasons, the tenant’s rehearing application is dismissed. Suppression
The suppression order made in the Tribunal’s order dated 11 June 2025 is to continue, with name suppression granted to the landlord.

Reasons

Ms Harris-Pereniki, the tenant, and [The landlord’s representative], representing the landlord, both attended the teleconference rehearing consideration hearing.

On 11 June 2025, the Tribunal made an order striking out the tenant’s application on the grounds that the matters had already been adjudicated, or could have been the subject of the earlier application filed with the Tribunal by the tenant.

On 12 June 2025, the tenant applied for a rehearing indicating that significant procedural and evidential issues affected the outcome of the original hearing and she was not given a fair opportunity to present her case. She said the grounds for her rehearing application included that: a. She contacted Tenancy Services and was told the issues in her current case, although mentioned in her first case, were still acceptable. b. That she had not been told she could request an adjournment the same day as the hearing, in regard to the hearing of her first application. c. That she was coerced to withdraw her application by the landlord for $100.00 and this stress contributed to her inability to attend the hearing of her first application, along with a sick child. d. That she was told by Tenancy Services that she could provide hard copies of evidence on the day of the hearing but was unable to have this considered as the hearing did not proceed to hear evidence. e. That she only mentioned cockroaches in her first application for context and not for compensation.

During the rehearing consideration hearing, the tenant referred additionally to ‘new evidence’ that was not available at the time of the hearing, namely around 20 documents that she had uploaded to the application on 25 August 2025, 2 days prior to the rehearing consideration, and what she said were 7 witness statements that she had not been able to upload but were relevant.

I pointed out to the tenant that the 20 or so documents she uploaded to the application on 25 August 2025 as ‘new evidence’ were documents that pre- dated the filing of her application 5239831 on 17 April 2025.

In one of the tenant’s new documents uploaded by her on 25 August 2025, she referred to unlawful entry and breach of quiet enjoyment by the landlord, neither of which were claimed by the tenant in her application 5239831. When asked about this, the tenant said that she had not been able to edit her application to add the additional new claims of unlawful entry and breach of quiet enjoyment earlier.

The tenant also said she was not aware that she could have applied for a rehearing of the Tribunal order in relation to her first application . When I pointed out that the Tribunal order dated 13 February 2025 contained specific information for parties on how to apply for a rehearing or file an appeal, the tenant said she had not received the Tribunal order dated 13 February 2025 until 2 months later, because it had been sent to the incorrect email. When I asked the tenant why she had not followed up on an order after the hearing of her first application sooner than 2 months, she said she had been misinformed by agencies such as Tenancy Services and the Community Law Centre about this.

The landlord said they have dealt with the tenant at her same email during her tenancy, without any problems so they did not understand why she would not have received the Tribunal order dated 13 February 2025 in application 4885841. The landlord said they also told the tenant the result of the hearing of the tenant’s first application right after the hearing when they received the order. 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, Duches Harris-Pereniki has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing: a. It is up to parties in Tribunal applications to obtain appropriate legal and other advice about their claims and about the process in a claim being heard, including options for adjournments. I note the tenant had requested and been granted an adjournment earlier in her first application 4885841 and so was aware of the process for doing so. b. There is new information mentioned in the tenant’s rehearing application, such as claims for unlawful entry and breach of quiet enjoyment and intimidation by the landlord, for example, which were not claimed in the tenant’s original application 5239831 before it was struck out. These claims cannot be considered here, as they were not claimed in the initial application and were not the subject of the Tribunal order striking out application 5239831. I note the tenant did not mention any intimidation by the landlord at the start of the hearing of application 5239831 when the preliminary issue was discussed as to whether the tenant’s application issues had already been adjudicated or could have been dealt with in her first application 4885841. The first mention of this is in the tenant’s rehearing application. c. The ‘hard copy’ evidence referred to by the tenant that she said was not considered by the Tribunal at the hearing, was not discussed as the Tribunal had to determine the preliminary matter of whether the issues had already been adjudicated or could have been dealt with in the tenant’s first application, and then the application was struck out. As the application was struck out, there could be no hearing of any evidence after this. d. The ‘new evidence’ provided by the tenant, which was uploaded on 25 August 2025 to the application 2 days prior to the rehearing consideration hearing, was evidence that pre-dated the tenant filing application 5239831 on 17 April 2025 and so was available prior to the hearing of application 5239831. As such, this evidence cannot be considered as ‘new evidence’ not available at the time of the hearing. e. As regards the tenant’s claim that she was not aware of the rehearing process after her first application was dismissed, the Tribunal order dated 13 February 2025 in application 4885841 specifically sets out the rehearing and appeal process. The tenant said she did not receive this Tribunal order until 2 months after the hearing. The tenant was clearly aware of the hearing date, as she was contacted by the Registrar on the hearing date, as acknowledged by her, and could have followed up with the Court about the hearing result, had she not received the order initially. Further, I accept the landlord’s evidence as likely that they discussed the result of the hearing of the tenant’s first application directly with the tenant after they received the order. As such, I find it likely that the tenant was aware that her first application had been dismissed and did not take steps to apply for a rehearing then. f. As regards the tenant’s comment that the cockroaches were mentioned by her as context not as a claim in her first application 4885841, this has been dealt with in the Tribunal’s order dated 11 June 2025 in application 5239831 and is not considered a procedural issue relevant to the rehearing application, nor is it new evidence that was not available at the hearing time.

Therefore, based on the above reasons, the tenant’s rehearing application is dismissed. Suppression

The suppression order made in the Tribunal’s order dated 11 June 2025 is to continue, with name suppression granted to the landlord.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5239831 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5239831 — 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