What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5275062 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5275062?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5275062?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5275062?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12455828-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5275062 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5275062?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5275062?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5275062?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12455828-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room 1, 17 Elder Street, Dunedin Central, Dunedin 9016 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5275062 — Exemplary damages

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 20/8/2025 the Tribunal made an order dismissing the tenant’s application for compensation for medical costs, a bond and installation of a cat flap, and exemplary damages for failure to lodge the bond and retaliatory notice.
The same day the tenant applied for a rehearing on the following grounds: a. “The tribunal’s decision took irrelevant matters into account; and b. Failed to take account of relevant matters; and c. Was unreasonable in the sense that no reasonable adjudicator, acting reasonably and in accordance with the law, could have made that decision”.
At the hearing the tenant submitted that weight was given to the landlord’s evidence, but his evidence was not considered.
In response the landlord submitted that the decision was correct and believed the tenant’s application was vexatious.
The landlord sought costs.
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.”
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.
Simply disagreeing with a decision of the Tribunal is not grounds for a rehearing, Yogeswaran v Doubletree Properties Ltd [2012] NZDC 1574.

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 him a second opportunity to present his case, b. The Tribunal process did not disadvantage the tenant in any way, c. In making any decision it is for the Adjudicator to determine whose evidence is preferred, d. Both parties provided evidence during both hearings, e. The Tribunal carefully considered all evidence even if particular pieces of evidence were not mentioned in the decision, f. The interests of justice require parties to put their best case forward at the hearing and both parties had ample opportunity to do this, g. The tenant has not provided any new evidence which may have changed the outcome.
I consider no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred which justifies a rehearing.
The objective of the Tribunal is to determine expeditiously disputes arising between landlords and tenants.
A rehearing is not an alternative to an appeal. If the tenant is dissatisfied with the decision, then the appropriate course of action is for him to appeal the decision, which he has indeed done.

Should costs be awarded?

The situations in which the Tribunal can award costs are set out in section 102.
Subsection (2)(a) provides that the Tribunal may make an award of costs where in its opinion the proceedings are frivolous or vexatious or ought not to have been brought.
An award of costs by the Tribunal is rare.
The landlord’s concerns are understandable because he felt the dispute had been concluded following the determination of 20 August 2025.
However, the Act provides an opportunity for a party to apply for a rehearing on the grounds that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice may have occurred.
I consider, and despite the fact he has been unsuccessful, that the tenant’s decision to apply for a rehearing was not vexatious because he was merely following the prescribed procedure.
An award of costs is not available to the landlord.
As the tenant has appealed the decision to the District Court any cost issues can be considered by the learned Judge at the appeal stage.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 20/8/2025 the Tribunal made an order dismissing the tenant’s application for compensation for medical costs, a bond and installation of a cat flap, and exemplary damages for failure to lodge the bond and retaliatory notice.
The same day the tenant applied for a rehearing on the following grounds: a. “The tribunal’s decision took irrelevant matters into account; and b. Failed to take account of relevant matters; and c. Was unreasonable in the sense that no reasonable adjudicator, acting reasonably and in accordance with the law, could have made that decision”.
At the hearing the tenant submitted that weight was given to the landlord’s evidence, but his evidence was not considered.
In response the landlord submitted that the decision was correct and believed the tenant’s application was vexatious.
The landlord sought costs.
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.”
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.
Simply disagreeing with a decision of the Tribunal is not grounds for a rehearing, Yogeswaran v Doubletree Properties Ltd [2012] NZDC 1574.

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 him a second opportunity to present his case, b. The Tribunal process did not disadvantage the tenant in any way, c. In making any decision it is for the Adjudicator to determine whose evidence is preferred, d. Both parties provided evidence during both hearings, e. The Tribunal carefully considered all evidence even if particular pieces of evidence were not mentioned in the decision, f. The interests of justice require parties to put their best case forward at the hearing and both parties had ample opportunity to do this, g. The tenant has not provided any new evidence which may have changed the outcome.
I consider no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred which justifies a rehearing.
The objective of the Tribunal is to determine expeditiously disputes arising between landlords and tenants.
A rehearing is not an alternative to an appeal. If the tenant is dissatisfied with the decision, then the appropriate course of action is for him to appeal the decision, which he has indeed done.

Should costs be awarded?

The situations in which the Tribunal can award costs are set out in section 102.
Subsection (2)(a) provides that the Tribunal may make an award of costs where in its opinion the proceedings are frivolous or vexatious or ought not to have been brought.
An award of costs by the Tribunal is rare.
The landlord’s concerns are understandable because he felt the dispute had been concluded following the determination of 20 August 2025.
However, the Act provides an opportunity for a party to apply for a rehearing on the grounds that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice may have occurred.
I consider, and despite the fact he has been unsuccessful, that the tenant’s decision to apply for a rehearing was not vexatious because he was merely following the prescribed procedure.
An award of costs is not available to the landlord.
As the tenant has appealed the decision to the District Court any cost issues can be considered by the learned Judge at the appeal stage.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5275062 — Exemplary damages at Room 1, 17 Elder Street, Dunedin Central, Dunedin 9016

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5275062 — Exemplary damages at Room 1, 17 Elder Street, Dunedin Central, Dunedin 9016

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Should costs be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Should costs be awarded?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.