Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5287481 — Tenancy dispute at 3 Futter Grove, Taita, Lower Hutt 5011
Decided 15 January 2026 · Published 15 January 2026 · Application 5287481
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Landlord favoured
From published order
Location
Lower Hutt
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
P Singh
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 tenants’ applications for an extension of time to file a rehearing application, and for a rehearing, are dismissed.
Reasons
What do the tenants seek?
- On 16 July 2025, the Tribunal made orders for rental arrears, termination of the tenancy, and refund of the bond to offset those arrears. The orders were made in the tenants’ absence, as they failed to attend the hearing despite being properly served.
- On 15 August 2025, the tenants applied for an extension of time to file a rehearing application and sought a rehearing, relying on extenuating personal circumstances.. What must be established to grant the tenants’ applications?
- Section 105(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal may order a rehearing where a “substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur.”
- Generally, an applicant for a rehearing must demonstrate that there was a procedural failure, such as not receiving notice of the hearing or being unable to properly present their case. A rehearing may also be granted where new evidence, not reasonably available at the original hearing, has since emerged and could have affected the outcome.
- The District Court has held that mere errors in findings of fact or the application of the law are insufficient to establish a miscarriage of justice. A rehearing is not a substitute for an appeal. Nor will a rehearing be granted simply because a party is dissatisfied with the decision or seeks a second opportunity to present their case.
Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?
- For the following reasons, the tenants have failed to establish grounds for a rehearing: a. The tenants failed to attend the scheduled hearing despite having been properly notified and did not respond to telephone calls to try to contact them. As they failed to pursue their applications, those applications are dismissed accordingly. b. In any event, even if the tenants had participated in the hearing, the landlord, in response to and having regard to the matters raised in the tenants’ applications for a rehearing and an extension of time, reassessed the rental arrears, forgave the debt, and took no steps to enforce the Tribunal’s earlier orders, which duly lapsed. In those circumstances, the tenants’ applications were rendered nugatory, the issues having become moot.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s105(1)
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5287481?
The tribunal order states: The tenants’ applications for an extension of time to file a rehearing application, and for
How much money was awarded in case 5287481?
Verified claim lines are listed on this page.
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5287481?
The dispute type was not classified.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5287481?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12690375-Tribunal_Order.pdf.