What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5287059 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ names and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 5287059?

The reconciled net award was $1,825.55.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5287059?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5287059?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13406293-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5287059 about?

The tribunal order states: The parties’ names and identifying details must not be published.

How much money was awarded in case 5287059?

The reconciled net award was $1,825.55.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5287059?

The primary dispute was Mould & damp. Related themes: State of repair, Cleanliness, Healthy homes, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5287059?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13406293-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5287059 — Mould & damp

Order

The parties’ names and identifying details must not be published.
The landlord’s application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

This is a reserved decision on the landlord’s application for a rehearing. The landlord and both the tenants attended the rehearing consideration hearing held at the Auckland District Court on 11 March 2026. The landlord’s wife also attended, and the Tribunal gave her leave to address the Tribunal. A Spanish interpreter insisted with interpretation in respect to one of the tenants.
The landlord applies for a rehearing of the hearing of 7 November 2025. That would lead to the Tribunal vacating its decision of 1 December 2025. In that decision, in summary, the Tribunal found the landlord liable for $8,567.00 for overpaid rent from unlawful rent increases, and compensation and exemplary damages for failing to maintain the premises to a reasonable standard of repair and failing to comply with the Healthy Homes standards. The Tribunal additionally found the tenants liable to the landlord in the sum of $1,825.55 for water, cleaning, rubbish removal, and damage. In consequence, the Tribunal ordered the landlord to pay the tenants $6,741.45.
The Tribunal declined to make an order for the landlord breaching his bond duties and dismissed the tenants’ claim that the landlord harassed them.
The landlord applied for a rehearing on grounds including that the tenants filed a 97- page submission on the date of hearing, the premises were warm, light, and dry, the tenants claims result from a devious campaign because they could not afford the flat, the tenants left the premises untenantable, the tenants contradicted themselves, the tenants admitted causing damage, the tenants refused the landlord access to the premises, and that the landlord did not harass the tenants or refuse to repair the premises as required. Legal principles
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. The Tribunal may grant a rehearing where the applicant discovers new evidence that was not reasonably available at the first hearing if it could have affected the outcome.
The applicant need not establish an actual miscarriage of justice or substantial wrong, only that it may have occurred. However, the Tribunal should not grant a rehearing only because a party is unhappy with the decision, or to give them a second opportunity to present their case. In Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, Judge Tuohy held that the statutory language set a high standard, and that: [18] ... 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. [19] 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.
In Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC 1993, Judge Christiansen observed: Rehearings are about challenges to processes and procedures and are not about what the adjudicator found or the decisions the adjudicator made.
For applications based on new evidence, the proposed new evidence must be fresh, which means that the landlord could not have with reasonable diligence produced the evidence at trial. In Rae v International Insurance Brokers, the Court of Appeal explained the principle as follows: 1 The principles upon which further evidence is admitted are designed to balance the interests of the person seeking to adduce such evidence on the one hand with the interests of the opposite parties on the other. They are also designed to reflect the public interest in ensuring, so far as is possible, that parties put up their best case at trial. Any other approach would be very wasteful of public resources. The conventional requirements are that the further evidence must be fresh, it must be credible and it must be cogent. Evidence is not regarded as fresh if it could with reasonable diligence have been produced at the trial. ...While the absence of freshness is not an absolute disqualification, the criteria for admission in such circumstances must be very strict. In our view, when the evidence is not fresh it should not be admitted unless the circumstances are exceptional and the grounds compelling. In addition, it will need to pass the tests of credibility and cogency. Discussion
The landlord submitted: 2 At the hearing being 7 th November 2025, I/we were presented with a 97-page document which we had not previously viewed. This gave us no time to defend ourselves against the numerous allegations presented in this document by the tenant...
However, the tenants served the document on the landlord on about 16 October 2025 and provided another copy of it to the landlord at the hearing on 7 November 2025.
In his written submissions filed in the Tribunal on 23 October 2025, the landlord referred to the tenants’ “98 page” (not 97-page) submission. To ensure that the document the tenants served was the same as the document they brought to the hearing, I directed the parties “to bring a copy of the tenants’ 7 November 2025 97- page submission to the hearing”. The tenants supplied their copy of the document, which comprises 98 (not 97) pages. I am satisfied that the “98-page” document is the 1 Rae v International Insurance Brokers (Nelson Marlborough) Ltd [1998] 3 NZLR 190 at 193-194. The District Court applied Rae in Bruce Daniel as Trustee for Jemma Trust v Nicole Rutherford CIV-2009- 044-002056. 2 Reasons for Applying for a Re-Hearing dated 11 March 2026. same document as the one the landlord describes as the “97-page document”. That being so, the landlord received a copy of the tenants’ documents three weeks before the hearing. It follows, the landlord had sufficient time to consider the tenants’ documents.
Moreover, the tenants had already clearly set out their claims in their application filed on 16 June 2025. Tenancy Services sent the application and the supporting documents to the landlord on 3 July 2025. Therefore, the tenants sufficiently informed the landlord of the tenants’ claims and evidence in advance of the hearing.
The landlord submitted that the tenant whose first language is Spanish “used a Spanish interpreter for lengthy verbal exchanges in Spanish to exclude us from that aspect of the proceedings...[and]...[t]his lack of transparency prevented us from understanding fully the case against us”.
The tenant obtained the interpreter’s assistance on occasion as requested by her during. Interpreters in court enable a person who does not have fully competence in English to participate fairly in the hearing. There might be situations in which a party misuses this accommodation to the opposing party’s disadvantage. However, I am not aware that anything untoward involving the interpreter occurred during the hearing. The landlord has not provided evidence or made submissions that raise a credible narrative that the tenant’s use of a Spanish interpreter disadvantaged the landlord at the hearing.
The landlord submitted that he wished to submit new evidence about the tenants not restraining an aggressive dog or permitting the landlord access to the premises. That is not fresh evidence because with reasonable diligence, the landlord it could have given the evidence at the impugned hearing.
The landlord intends to argue at the proposed rehearing that the tenants’ claims were “premeditated for the sole intent of the Applicant to be retrospectively awarded a substantial sum of money”, the landlord would have installed an extractor fan if the tenants asked, the tenants interfered with the rangehood extractor fan, and the tenants deliberately allowed mould to develop to bolster their case. However, that is simply an intention to reargue what the parties have already had the opportunity to argue.
The landlord also wishes to claim that the tenants blocked the drains. That was not a claim that was before the Tribunal, so a rehearing of the claim is not possible. Conclusion
The landlord is dissatisfied with the Tribunal’s decision and wishes to reargue his case and present further evidence. However, the Tribunal cannot order a rehearing because the landlord has not established that the hearing or the Tribunal’s decision occasions or may occasion a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.
The Tribunal therefore dismissed the landlord’s application for a rehearing. Non-publication
For the reasons given in the original decision, the parties names and identifying details must not be published. 3

Tenancy Tribunal case 5287059 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5287059 — Mould & damp

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions