What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5277241 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5277241?

Broken Bathroom Door Handle: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Broken Latch To Courtyard: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $70.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $960.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $20.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $310.67 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $370.34 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $9,720.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Grass Fencing At Front Of Ap…: $240.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Stolen Television: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $124.60 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5277241?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5277241?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12749001-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5277241 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5277241?

Broken Bathroom Door Handle: $60.00 awarded to landlord; Broken Latch To Courtyard: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $70.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $960.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $50.00 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $20.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $27.00 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $310.67 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $370.34 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $9,720.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Grass Fencing At Front Of Ap…: $240.00 awarded to landlord; Replace Stolen Television: $600.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $124.60 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5277241?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages, Cleanliness, Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5277241?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12749001-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat G07, 165 Lake Road, Northcote, Auckland 0627 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5277241 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5277241 — net $15,652.61 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 31 July 2025 (includes 3 weeks’ notice not given	$9,720.00	Rent arrears to 31 July 2025 (includes 3 weeks’ notice not given
Carpet Cleaning: Replace stones out the front of apartment	$50.00	Carpet Cleaning: Replace stones out the front of apartment
Exemplary damages- failure to allow entry	$1,500.00	failure to allow entry
Exemplary damages-altering/ gluing locks	$1,500.00	altering/ gluing locks
Lock/key replacement: Compensation- replace lock	$310.67	Lock/key replacement: Compensation- replace lock
Cleaning: Rug doctor	$50.00	Cleaning: Rug doctor
Cleaning: Rug doctor chemicals	$20.00	Cleaning: Rug doctor chemicals
Cleaning: Cleaning products	$70.00	Cleaning: Cleaning products
Cleaning: Labour	$960.00	Cleaning: Labour
Rubbish removal	$124.60	Rubbish removal
Damage to wall paint	$370.34	Damage to wall paint
Replace grass fencing at front of apartment	$240.00	Replace grass fencing at front of apartment
Replace stolen television	$600.00	Replace stolen television
Broken bathroom door handle	$60.00	Broken bathroom door handle
Broken latch to courtyard	$50.00	Broken latch to courtyard
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$15,652.61
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$15,652.61

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 15 July 2025, the Tribunal made an order for a. The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat G07, 165 Lake Road, Northcote, Auckland 0627 to be terminated, and possession granted to [The landlord/s], at 5pm on Tuesday 15 August 2024. b. [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $15,652.61 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlordTenant Rent arrears to 31 July 2025 (includes 3 weeks’ notice not given) $9,720.00 Exemplary damages- failure to allow entry$1,500.00 Exemplary damages-altering/ gluing locks$1,500.00 Lock/key replacement: Compensation- replace lock$310.67 Cleaning: Rug doctor$50.00 Cleaning: Rug doctor chemicals$20.00 Cleaning: Cleaning products$70.00 Cleaning: Labour$960.00 Rubbish removal$124.60 Damage to wall paint$370.34 Replace grass fencing at front of apartment$240.00 Replace stolen television$600.00 Broken bathroom door handle$60.00 Broken latch to courtyard$50.00 Carpet Cleaning: Replace stones out the front of apartment $50.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$15,652.61 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$15,652.61
On 21 July 2025, Mr. Ji Min Hwang, (also known as James Hwang and [The tenant/s] applied for a rehearing on the grounds that: a. He was medically unfit to attend the hearing and was unable to present his defence to the landlord’s claims; b. He did not have all the materials sent to him by the landlord; c. The evidence produced by the landlord, and consequently by the Tribunal’s findings of fact, are “fabricated” and “false”; d. No quotes or evidence has been presented for response.
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”.
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 Mr. Ji Min Hwang has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing. Medically unfit to attend the scheduled hearing
Mr Hwang stated that: a. He was sexually assaulted at his flat on a date in May 2025 that he cannot remember, and he was suffering from PTSD so could not contact the Tribunal to inform it he was unwell and would not be attending the scheduled 15 July 2025 hearing on or prior to the hearing and to seek an adjournment; b. He was unwell on 1 July 2025 and was sent by his GP to the hospital for assessment of his stomach pain and he discharged himself on the same day as he had “waited too long” and “didn’t want to wait any more”; c. He had been unable to get a medical certificate after the hearing on 15 July 2025 to support his rehearing application, until 21 July 2025, to prove he had been medially unfit to attend the 15 July 2025 hearing; d. He had contacted MBIE to inform the Tribunal why he had not attended the 15 July 2025 hearing, on an unknown date, and been told he needed a medical certificate to support his rehearing application; e. He had PTSD at the time of the 15 July 2025 hearing and did not want to disclose his health issues so did not seek an adjournment on medical grounds; f. He was having problems with his outlook email address.
I note that Mr Hwang: a. Received the notice of hearing on 3 July 2025, 2 days after he had been at the hospital about his stomach pain and discharged himself; b. Had not gone back to the GP between 1 and 21 July 2025 for what the 21 July 2025 GP medical records note was a follow up consultation post the hospital assessment; c. Received follow up text reminders about the 15 July 2025 hearing on 10 and 14 July 2025. His GP medical records show that on 21 July 2025 he self-reported that he had been experiencing the stomach pain again on 13 July2025 and was feeling better by the time he went to the GP on 21 July 2025 to get a postdated medical certificate saying he was “unfit to attend” (but does not say what he was unfit to attend from 13 to 26 July 2025); d. Sent an application for adjournment to the Court registry on 8 July 2025 seeking and adjournment of the 15 July 2025 hearing as he “needed time to prepare” he did not mention that he was unwell or was seeking an adjournment based on the stomach issue that led him to go to his GP and the hospital on 1 July 2025 and then discharge himself because he didn’t want to wait to be assessed by the hospital; e. Had his adjournment application denied as he had ample time to prepare for what was a relatively straightforward landlord application; and f. GP records for 21 July 2025 do not reflect any issues that would have stopped him from contacting the registry to seek an adjournment based on his ill health between 1 and 15 July 2025) or to let the Tribunal know he was to sick to attend the hearing.
I do not find the tenant’s medical incapacity argument compelling. The medial certificate from the GP is based on the tenant’s self-reporting that he was unwell at the time of the hearing six days after the hearing. Additionally, the tenant clearly knows how to apply for a health related adjournment and that he needs to at the very minimum contact Tenancy Services or the Ministry of Justice registry to inform the Tribunal when he cannot attend a hearing. He did not and there is no evidence to prove that he was incapable of doing so;
The tenant appears, on the evidence, to have been unsuccessful with seeking an adjournment to allow him more time to prepare his defence and when he did not get the adjournment, he made the decision not to attend the hearing and then used health issues to try to get a rehearing after he received the 15 July 2025 Order. Not being provided with evidence by the landlord or quotes
I note that Mr Hwang: a. Received the landlord’s application and all the evidence she had filed on 2 June 2025; b. Did not make any requests for additional evidence to the Tribunal or the landlord prior to the hearing; c. Would have heard the landlord’s claims and seen the landlord’s invoices and receipts had he attended the 15 July 2025 hearing.
There is no evidence that Mr Hwang was not provided with the landlord’s applications or the evidence she relied on to support her claims or that any potential or actual miscarriage of justice has occurred due to him not having received the landlord’s application and/or evidence. Fabricated and false evidence led to wrong findings of fact
Mr Hwang claims that the evidence the landlord gave at the 15 July 2025 hearing was fabricated and false and he disputes the findings of fact that the Tribunal made in its 15 July Order as these findings of fact were based on this false and fabricated evidence. Therefore, a substantial miscarriage of justice as occurred and the landlord’s clams should be reheard to give the tenant an opportunity to refute this evidence.
Not agreeing with the Tribunal’s findings of fact or its Orders is not grounds for a rehearing. It is open to the landlord to appeal the Tribunal Order if he disagrees with the Tribunal’s findings of fact, but it is not a ground for a rehearing.
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That included a requirement that applicant establish her claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
The landlord discharged this burden of proof based on the evidence that was before the Tribunal. If the tenant does not agree that the landlord did so, it is open to the landlord to appeal the Tribunal Order, but it is not a ground for a rehearing. Conclusion
No evidence has been provided by the tenant that supports a claim that an error in process or a substantial miscarriage of justice has occurred that would justify the granting of a rehearing.
The tenant’s application for a rehearing and a stay of enforcement proceedings is dismissed for all the reasons set out above and the original 15 July 2025 Tribunal Order stands and is enforceable.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5277241 — net $15,652.61 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 31 July 2025 (includes 3 weeks’ notice not given	$9,720.00	Rent arrears to 31 July 2025 (includes 3 weeks’ notice not given
Carpet Cleaning: Replace stones out the front of apartment	$50.00	Carpet Cleaning: Replace stones out the front of apartment
Exemplary damages- failure to allow entry	$1,500.00	failure to allow entry
Exemplary damages-altering/ gluing locks	$1,500.00	altering/ gluing locks
Lock/key replacement: Compensation- replace lock	$310.67	Lock/key replacement: Compensation- replace lock
Cleaning: Rug doctor	$50.00	Cleaning: Rug doctor
Cleaning: Rug doctor chemicals	$20.00	Cleaning: Rug doctor chemicals
Cleaning: Cleaning products	$70.00	Cleaning: Cleaning products
Cleaning: Labour	$960.00	Cleaning: Labour
Rubbish removal	$124.60	Rubbish removal
Damage to wall paint	$370.34	Damage to wall paint
Replace grass fencing at front of apartment	$240.00	Replace grass fencing at front of apartment
Replace stolen television	$600.00	Replace stolen television
Broken bathroom door handle	$60.00	Broken bathroom door handle
Broken latch to courtyard	$50.00	Broken latch to courtyard
Filing fee reimbursement	$27.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$15,652.61
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$15,652.61

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 15 July 2025, the Tribunal made an order for a. The tenancy of [The tenant/s] at Unit/Flat G07, 165 Lake Road, Northcote, Auckland 0627 to be terminated, and possession granted to [The landlord/s], at 5pm on Tuesday 15 August 2024. b. [The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $15,652.61 immediately, calculated as shown in table below. DescriptionLandlordTenant Rent arrears to 31 July 2025 (includes 3 weeks’ notice not given) $9,720.00 Exemplary damages- failure to allow entry$1,500.00 Exemplary damages-altering/ gluing locks$1,500.00 Lock/key replacement: Compensation- replace lock$310.67 Cleaning: Rug doctor$50.00 Cleaning: Rug doctor chemicals$20.00 Cleaning: Cleaning products$70.00 Cleaning: Labour$960.00 Rubbish removal$124.60 Damage to wall paint$370.34 Replace grass fencing at front of apartment$240.00 Replace stolen television$600.00 Broken bathroom door handle$60.00 Broken latch to courtyard$50.00 Carpet Cleaning: Replace stones out the front of apartment $50.00 Filing fee reimbursement$27.00 Total award$15,652.61 Total payable by Tenant to Landlord$15,652.61
On 21 July 2025, Mr. Ji Min Hwang, (also known as James Hwang and [The tenant/s] applied for a rehearing on the grounds that: a. He was medically unfit to attend the hearing and was unable to present his defence to the landlord’s claims; b. He did not have all the materials sent to him by the landlord; c. The evidence produced by the landlord, and consequently by the Tribunal’s findings of fact, are “fabricated” and “false”; d. No quotes or evidence has been presented for response.
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”.
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 Mr. Ji Min Hwang has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing. Medically unfit to attend the scheduled hearing
Mr Hwang stated that: a. He was sexually assaulted at his flat on a date in May 2025 that he cannot remember, and he was suffering from PTSD so could not contact the Tribunal to inform it he was unwell and would not be attending the scheduled 15 July 2025 hearing on or prior to the hearing and to seek an adjournment; b. He was unwell on 1 July 2025 and was sent by his GP to the hospital for assessment of his stomach pain and he discharged himself on the same day as he had “waited too long” and “didn’t want to wait any more”; c. He had been unable to get a medical certificate after the hearing on 15 July 2025 to support his rehearing application, until 21 July 2025, to prove he had been medially unfit to attend the 15 July 2025 hearing; d. He had contacted MBIE to inform the Tribunal why he had not attended the 15 July 2025 hearing, on an unknown date, and been told he needed a medical certificate to support his rehearing application; e. He had PTSD at the time of the 15 July 2025 hearing and did not want to disclose his health issues so did not seek an adjournment on medical grounds; f. He was having problems with his outlook email address.
I note that Mr Hwang: a. Received the notice of hearing on 3 July 2025, 2 days after he had been at the hospital about his stomach pain and discharged himself; b. Had not gone back to the GP between 1 and 21 July 2025 for what the 21 July 2025 GP medical records note was a follow up consultation post the hospital assessment; c. Received follow up text reminders about the 15 July 2025 hearing on 10 and 14 July 2025. His GP medical records show that on 21 July 2025 he self-reported that he had been experiencing the stomach pain again on 13 July2025 and was feeling better by the time he went to the GP on 21 July 2025 to get a postdated medical certificate saying he was “unfit to attend” (but does not say what he was unfit to attend from 13 to 26 July 2025); d. Sent an application for adjournment to the Court registry on 8 July 2025 seeking and adjournment of the 15 July 2025 hearing as he “needed time to prepare” he did not mention that he was unwell or was seeking an adjournment based on the stomach issue that led him to go to his GP and the hospital on 1 July 2025 and then discharge himself because he didn’t want to wait to be assessed by the hospital; e. Had his adjournment application denied as he had ample time to prepare for what was a relatively straightforward landlord application; and f. GP records for 21 July 2025 do not reflect any issues that would have stopped him from contacting the registry to seek an adjournment based on his ill health between 1 and 15 July 2025) or to let the Tribunal know he was to sick to attend the hearing.
I do not find the tenant’s medical incapacity argument compelling. The medial certificate from the GP is based on the tenant’s self-reporting that he was unwell at the time of the hearing six days after the hearing. Additionally, the tenant clearly knows how to apply for a health related adjournment and that he needs to at the very minimum contact Tenancy Services or the Ministry of Justice registry to inform the Tribunal when he cannot attend a hearing. He did not and there is no evidence to prove that he was incapable of doing so;
The tenant appears, on the evidence, to have been unsuccessful with seeking an adjournment to allow him more time to prepare his defence and when he did not get the adjournment, he made the decision not to attend the hearing and then used health issues to try to get a rehearing after he received the 15 July 2025 Order. Not being provided with evidence by the landlord or quotes
I note that Mr Hwang: a. Received the landlord’s application and all the evidence she had filed on 2 June 2025; b. Did not make any requests for additional evidence to the Tribunal or the landlord prior to the hearing; c. Would have heard the landlord’s claims and seen the landlord’s invoices and receipts had he attended the 15 July 2025 hearing.
There is no evidence that Mr Hwang was not provided with the landlord’s applications or the evidence she relied on to support her claims or that any potential or actual miscarriage of justice has occurred due to him not having received the landlord’s application and/or evidence. Fabricated and false evidence led to wrong findings of fact
Mr Hwang claims that the evidence the landlord gave at the 15 July 2025 hearing was fabricated and false and he disputes the findings of fact that the Tribunal made in its 15 July Order as these findings of fact were based on this false and fabricated evidence. Therefore, a substantial miscarriage of justice as occurred and the landlord’s clams should be reheard to give the tenant an opportunity to refute this evidence.
Not agreeing with the Tribunal’s findings of fact or its Orders is not grounds for a rehearing. It is open to the landlord to appeal the Tribunal Order if he disagrees with the Tribunal’s findings of fact, but it is not a ground for a rehearing.
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations. That included a requirement that applicant establish her claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely. This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden. As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
The landlord discharged this burden of proof based on the evidence that was before the Tribunal. If the tenant does not agree that the landlord did so, it is open to the landlord to appeal the Tribunal Order, but it is not a ground for a rehearing. Conclusion
No evidence has been provided by the tenant that supports a claim that an error in process or a substantial miscarriage of justice has occurred that would justify the granting of a rehearing.
The tenant’s application for a rehearing and a stay of enforcement proceedings is dismissed for all the reasons set out above and the original 15 July 2025 Tribunal Order stands and is enforceable.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5277241 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat G07, 165 Lake Road, Northcote, Auckland 0627

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5277241 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat G07, 165 Lake Road, Northcote, Auckland 0627

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions