Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5274221 — Tenancy dispute
Decided 16 Oct 2025 · Published 16 Oct 2025 · Application 5274221
Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Location
New Zealand
Tribunal region
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.
Order
- The Tribunal orders suppression of the respondent’s name and identifying details.
- The applicant’s application for an adjournment of the hearing for the rehearing application is dismissed.
- The applicant’s application for a rehearing of the Order of 20 September 2025 is dismissed.
Reasons
- The relevant background to this matter is as follows: a. On 09 September 2025, this Tribunal issued an Order that the tenancy agreement between the parties was not valid and that there was no tenant - landlord relationship between the parties; b. On 20 September 2025, this Tribunal issued an Order under section 65 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (Eviction of Squatters) granting possession of the premises to the respondent; c. On 26 September 2025, the applicant applied for a rehearing of the Order of 20 September 2025 and a stay of proceedings; d. On 30 September 2025, this Tribunal issued an Order stating that a hearing would be held to determine if the applicant’s application for a rehearing should be granted and granting the application for a stay of proceedings;
- The Order of 30 September 2025 was issued after the respondent had enforced the possession Order. As the stay that had been issued was void due to the possession order having already been enforced, the hearing to determine if a rehearing should be granted was listed as an urgent matter for 14 October 2025.
- The hearing took place on 14 October 2025 via telephone. [Name] attended the hearing for the respondent with [Name] as a support person. The applicant attended the hearing. With the respondent’s permission, the applicant’s son, Mr Teiho, spoke on the applicant’s behalf. Should the applicant’s application for a rehearing be granted?
- Section 105(1) of the 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”.
- 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.
- The applicant said that a rehearing should be granted on the grounds that a substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred or was likely to occur because: a. Following the hearing it had come to the applicant’s attention that there was an issue with the evidence that had been provided by the respondent for the hearing on 19 September 2025. The applicant said that: i. The shareholders of the company that is one of the shareholders of the respondent had changed; ii. The sale and purchase agreement between the applicant and the respondent provided by the respondent was not the latest version of the document; iii. The Record of Title from the Land Registry provided by the respondent was not the most up to date version of the document; and b. The Tribunal did not consider the evidence presented that the applicant had an equitable interest in the premises.
- In her written submissions, the applicant referred to the decision of the District Court in Graeme Geraghty Leonie Jones v Raui [2019] NZDC 3813. In that case, Judge de Ridder needed to consider a case where there was one power meter for both a main house and a semi-detached flat (the tenancy). The Tribunal had dismissed the claim for power charges because there was no separate meter to be able to determine what the power consumption to the tenancy was with precision. The District Court did not agree with that approach, and granted the applicant’s application for a rehearing stating: [24] In all the circumstances, where there is an argument that s 85 might apply to produce a different result and that provision has not been considered, then that could be said to amount to a procedural error which in turn has possibly resulted in a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.
- Section 85 is a provision in the RTA which relates to decision making of the Tribunal and confirms that the Tribunal should look to a fair resolution of the dispute, taking into account substantial merits and justice, not necessarily strict legal rights and technicalities. It states: 85 Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2) The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities.
- I do not consider there is an argument that section 85 of the RTA would apply to produce a different result for the following reasons: a. Change in shareholding: In the Order of 09 September 2025, I explained that the Tribunal could not determine if the applicant had an equitable interest in the premises. This is a question for the High Court. A change in the shareholdings of one of the entities that is a shareholder of the respondent can only be relevant to the applicant’s argument that it has an equitable jurisdiction in the premises; b. Sale and purchase agreement: At the hearing on 14 October 2025, the applicant acknowledged that the respondent is currently recorded on the Land Registry as the registered owner of the premises. It is possible that a different sales and purchase agreement may be relevant to the argument of whether the applicant has an equitable interest in the land. However, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine this issue; c. Land Registry Title: As set out above, the applicant is not disputing that the respondent is the registered owner of the premises. The relevant information on the title for the purpose of the parties’ applications to the Tenancy Tribunal is who is named as the registered owner. If the document provided was not the most up to date version of the title and had incorrect loan information, this does not change who is recorded on the Land Registry as the registered owner; and d. Failure to consider evidence: The applicant says that the Tribunal did not consider the applicant’s evidence that the respondent had promised her a home. The applicant referred to the legal principal of promissory estoppel saying that having promised her a home the landlord should not be permitted to evict her. The applicant’s evidence was considered by the Tribunal prior to the hearing on 19 September. Having considered the evidence presented by both parties, it was the Tribunal’s finding that there was not a valid tenancy agreement between the parties, the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to determine the tenant’s claim that she had an equitable interest in the premises and that a possession order should be granted to the respondent. Should the applicant’s application for an adjournment be granted?
- The applicant had submitted evidence prior to the earlier hearings that she had issued a statutory demand against the respondent. In her submissions for an application for a rehearing, the applicant said that an application to the High Court to determine if the applicant has an equitable interest in the premises has not been made. The applicant submits that an adjournment should be granted until 13 October 2025. By this date, the applicant said, the solvency of the respondent will be determined.
- The hearing for this Order took place after 13 October 2025. The applicant said that the issue of solvency of the respondent has not yet been determined and requested the matter of whether a rehearing should be granted to be adjourned until such time as the statutory demand issue was resolved.
- I do not consider this is grounds for an adjournment. I note the respondent filed their application for possession of the premises over 4 months ago on 27 May 2025. The Oder was made on 20 September 2025. The applicant is entitled to benefit from this Order and not to have an adjournment applied to the decision of whether a rehearing will be granted indefinitely.
- I do not consider that the applicant has provided good reason for a rehearing or an adjournment to be granted.
- The tenant’s applications are dismissed.
- In order to preserve the suppression order of 20 September 2025, the respondent’s name and identifying details are suppressed.