What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5254299 about?

The tribunal order states: The application for rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5254299?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5254299?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5254299?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12321896-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5254299 about?

The tribunal order states: The application for rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5254299?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5254299?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5254299?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12321896-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5254299 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the rehearing consideration hearing.
On 17 June 2025 the Tribunal made an order to reduce a fixed term tenancy, award rent in lieu of notice and refund the bond. All other claims were dismissed.
On 24 June 2025, the tenant(s) applied for a rehearing on the grounds that they considered that some of the evidence was missed by the Tribunal or not adequately considered and that therefore parts of the decision were substantially wrong.
They have provided significant submissions in support of the rehearing application. In summary the tenant(s) submit: a. That the order wrongly determined the date that rent in lieu should have been awarded until. b. That the order wrongly determined matters relating to the validity and provision of the health homes exemption. c. That there should be reconsideration of a penalty for treatment of the bond on receipt and that the order wrongly determined not to consider the bond issue. d. That the decision included some incorrect statements and had email discrepancies (for example, the decision wrongly concluded that the tenants had stopped communicating). e. That they disagreed with aspects of the decision. f. The landlord has had previous similar cases before the Tribunal that may be relevant.
The rehearing request also sought consideration of additional matters such as reimbursement of utilities and issues with the tenancy agreement (not raised in the original application). 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”.
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 e.g. 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(s) have failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing: a. The fact that the tenant(s) disagree with the decision, or that they wish to have the same matters considered again, is not a ground for a rehearing. b. The tenant(s) were notified of the hearing, they were able to present their case at the hearing and all evidence was accepted by the Tribunal. c. The interests of justice require parties to put their best foot forward at the hearing and both parties had ample opportunity to do this. d. The tenant(s) have not provided any new evidence not available at the hearing that may have changed the outcome of the Tribunal’s order. e. Some of the issues raised in the rehearing consideration hearing were not included in the original application or discussed at the original hearing. Having additional matters of dispute not included in the original application, hearing or order are not grounds for a rehearing.
In short, the grounds advanced by the tenant(s) for a rehearing suggest errors or a disagreement with the decision issued and the findings (both factual and legal) within that decision.
None of these grounds are grounds for a rehearing, they are instead grounds for an appeal to the District Court.
The application for a rehearing is dismissed.
For the avoidance of doubt, the Order of the Tribunal dated 17 June 2025 remains in full force and effect. R Harvey-Lane 26 August 2025

Reasons

Both parties attended the rehearing consideration hearing.

On 17 June 2025 the Tribunal made an order to reduce a fixed term tenancy, award rent in lieu of notice and refund the bond. All other claims were dismissed.

On 24 June 2025, the tenant(s) applied for a rehearing on the grounds that they considered that some of the evidence was missed by the Tribunal or not adequately considered and that therefore parts of the decision were substantially wrong.

They have provided significant submissions in support of the rehearing application. In summary the tenant(s) submit: a. That the order wrongly determined the date that rent in lieu should have been awarded until. b. That the order wrongly determined matters relating to the validity and provision of the health homes exemption. c. That there should be reconsideration of a penalty for treatment of the bond on receipt and that the order wrongly determined not to consider the bond issue. d. That the decision included some incorrect statements and had email discrepancies (for example, the decision wrongly concluded that the tenants had stopped communicating). e. That they disagreed with aspects of the decision. f. The landlord has had previous similar cases before the Tribunal that may be relevant.

The rehearing request also sought consideration of additional matters such as reimbursement of utilities and issues with the tenancy agreement (not raised in the original application). 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”.

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 e.g. 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(s) have failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing: a. The fact that the tenant(s) disagree with the decision, or that they wish to have the same matters considered again, is not a ground for a rehearing. b. The tenant(s) were notified of the hearing, they were able to present their case at the hearing and all evidence was accepted by the Tribunal. c. The interests of justice require parties to put their best foot forward at the hearing and both parties had ample opportunity to do this. d. The tenant(s) have not provided any new evidence not available at the hearing that may have changed the outcome of the Tribunal’s order. e. Some of the issues raised in the rehearing consideration hearing were not included in the original application or discussed at the original hearing. Having additional matters of dispute not included in the original application, hearing or order are not grounds for a rehearing.

In short, the grounds advanced by the tenant(s) for a rehearing suggest errors or a disagreement with the decision issued and the findings (both factual and legal) within that decision.

None of these grounds are grounds for a rehearing, they are instead grounds for an appeal to the District Court.

The application for a rehearing is dismissed.

For the avoidance of doubt, the Order of the Tribunal dated 17 June 2025 remains in full force and effect. R Harvey-Lane 26 August 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5254299 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5254299 — 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