What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5244991?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5244991?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5244991?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5244991?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11972252-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5244991?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5244991?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5244991?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5244991?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11972252-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

15 Marchant Road, Hihi, RD 1, Mangonui 0494 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5244991 — Exemplary damages

Order

The application by the tenant for a rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, by telephone.
On 8/5/2025 the Tribunal made an order dismissing the tenant’s applications for an extension of the term of her tenancy and exemplary damages.
On 14/5/2025 the tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that she wasn’t given an opportunity to present her case.
In addition, the tenant did not believe her application for exemplary damages for breach of quiet enjoyment and retaliatory notice had been heard.
At this hearing the tenant also wanted an opportunity to present her case about discrimination under section 12.
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.
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 tenant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing: a. The fact that the tenant disagrees with the decision is not a ground for a rehearing or to give her a second opportunity to present her case, b. By changing the date of the hearing and bringing it forward to the date the tenancy was to end the Tribunal process did not disadvantage the tenant in any way, c. The objective of the Tribunal is to determine expeditiously disputes arising between landlords and tenants. d. Both parties provided evidence during the hearing, e. The interests of justice require parties to put their best case forward at the hearing and both parties had ample opportunity to do this, f. The tenant’s claims for exemplary damages pursuant to sections 38 and 54 were heard and determined at the original hearing, with the agreement of the landlord, g. The tenant has not provided any new evidence which may have changed the outcome of the decision of 8/5/2025, h. The issue of discrimination raised by the tenant relates to matters after the 90 day notice was issued and the tenant has filed an application on this issue which is yet to be heard, 5257959. i. The landlord did not want a rehearing and advised that an application for possession has been made.
I consider no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred which justifies a rehearing.
For the avoidance of doubt the Order of the Tribunal dated 8 May 2025 remains in full force and effect.

Order

The application by the tenant for a rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, by telephone.
On 8/5/2025 the Tribunal made an order dismissing the tenant’s applications for an extension of the term of her tenancy and exemplary damages.
On 14/5/2025 the tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that she wasn’t given an opportunity to present her case.
In addition, the tenant did not believe her application for exemplary damages for breach of quiet enjoyment and retaliatory notice had been heard.
At this hearing the tenant also wanted an opportunity to present her case about discrimination under section 12.
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.
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 tenant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing: a. The fact that the tenant disagrees with the decision is not a ground for a rehearing or to give her a second opportunity to present her case, b. By changing the date of the hearing and bringing it forward to the date the tenancy was to end the Tribunal process did not disadvantage the tenant in any way, c. The objective of the Tribunal is to determine expeditiously disputes arising between landlords and tenants. d. Both parties provided evidence during the hearing, e. The interests of justice require parties to put their best case forward at the hearing and both parties had ample opportunity to do this, f. The tenant’s claims for exemplary damages pursuant to sections 38 and 54 were heard and determined at the original hearing, with the agreement of the landlord, g. The tenant has not provided any new evidence which may have changed the outcome of the decision of 8/5/2025, h. The issue of discrimination raised by the tenant relates to matters after the 90 day notice was issued and the tenant has filed an application on this issue which is yet to be heard, 5257959. i. The landlord did not want a rehearing and advised that an application for possession has been made.
I consider no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred which justifies a rehearing.
For the avoidance of doubt the Order of the Tribunal dated 8 May 2025 remains in full force and effect.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5244991 — Exemplary damages at 15 Marchant Road, Hihi, RD 1, Mangonui 0494

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5244991 — Exemplary damages at 15 Marchant Road, Hihi, RD 1, Mangonui 0494

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