What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5293279 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5293279?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5293279?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5293279?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12650983-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5293279 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5293279?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5293279?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5293279?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12650983-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

87 Mortlake Heights, Pyes Pa, Tauranga 3112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5293279 — Exemplary damages

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The application for a rehearing is dismissed.
The stay is lifted.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing on 31 October 2025.
On 11 August 2025 the Tribunal made an Order for the landlord to refund the bond, refund a rent overpayment, pay exemplary damages and reimburse the filing fee to the tenant. The landlord had failed to lodge the bond and retained the bond on the basis she considered the tenant is liable for the plumber’s fee in respect of the toilet being blocked during the tenancy. The tenant disputed liability for the plumber’s fee. The landlord has at no point filed a cross application in the Tribunal seeking compensation in respect of the plumber’s fee.
On 18 August 2025 the landlord applied for a rehearing of the Tribunal order.
The landlord’s grounds for a rehearing are: a.Since the hearing new information has been obtained in respect of the toilet being blocked, for which she says the tenant is liable for the cost of from the bond, which she holds. b.She disputed the claim that the tenant had overpaid rent – however at this hearing the landlord withdrew this submission and confirmed that the tenant had overpaid rent and she was liable for the rent refund which had been ordered by consent. c.She maintains that the tenant advised her not to lodge the bond, therefore she was justified in not doing so. The landlord says the order and reasons are all are miscarriage of justice
The landlord provided written submissions in support of her application for a rehearing.
The tenant opposes the application for a rehearing and says there are no grounds for a rehearing and notes the landlord has not filed a cross application in respect of the claim for the plumber’s fee.
Both parties provided oral submissions at the hearing.
The issue I must consider is whether a rehearing should be granted. The Law - Rehearings
The relevant law that applies is the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The RTA states the Tribunal has the power to order a rehearing of the whole or any part of the proceedings on the ground that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur. 1
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 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. 2
The applicant need not establish an actual miscarriage of justice or substantial wrong, only that it may have occurred. However, in the District Court Judgment of Wellington City Council v McMillan, 3 Judge Tuohy held that the statutory language set a high standard, and said: [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 1 See s 105 of the RTA. 2 Yogeswaran v Doubletrees Properties Ltd [2021] NZDC 15704 3 Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50 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. [20] 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 any decision twice: once to the very Tribunal which made it 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 that 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.”
A rehearing may be granted where there is new evidence that was not reasonably available at the first hearing, if it could have affected the outcome.
In Rae v International Insurance Brokers (Nelson Marlborough) Ltd 4 , the Court of Appeal set out relevant considerations regarding further evidence: 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 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. 4 Rae v International Insurance Brokers (Nelson Marlborough) Ltd [1998] 3 NZLR 190
The High Court in Angelo v Lehr 5 confirmed that it was not a miscarriage of justice to decline a rehearing just because evidence was not considered at the original hearing, when that evidence could have been produced at the original hearing.
As noted by the District Court in Loh v Puri 6 : In this Court’s view the Tribunal’s reasons for refusing a rehearing are correct. Rehearing’s are about challenges to processes and procedures and are not about what the adjudicator found or the decisions the adjudicator made.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the reasons that follow, I am not satisfied that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice may have occurred.
The fact that the landlord disagrees with the decision is not a ground for a rehearing or to give her a second opportunity to present her case.
The grounds advanced by the landlord, including as outlined in her written submissions and all the evidence provided in support of a rehearing, are a challenge to the Tribunals findings and decisions on the matters before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal process did not disadvantage the landlord in any way.
None of the grounds relate to a procedural error, or improper admission or rejection of evidence in relation to the claims, or misconduct by any person or party that would support a rehearing.
The interests of justice require parties to put their best case forward at the hearing and both parties had ample opportunity to do this.
There is no indication that any relevant or material evidence has been discovered that was not available at the time of hearing that relates to the claims before the Tribunal at the hearing. The landlord has not provided any new evidence which may have changed the outcome.
The landlord’s evidence in respect of the blocked toilet and the evidence the landlord seeks to submit to the Tribunal about this, was and is not relevant to the claims before the Tribunal, as there is no claim for compensation by the landlord for the plumber’s fee.
The landlord has provided no grounds that may be procedural in nature to support the application for a rehearing. While I recognise the landlord will be unhappy with the outcome of the original hearing, that is the outcome. 5 Angelo v Lehr [2022] NZHC 3033 6 Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC 1993 Judge Christiansen
The grounds instead relate to a complaint that the Tribunal was mistaken or wrong in its findings of fact or in its application of the law.
The grounds set out by the landlord may be grounds for an appeal, but are not, in my view, grounds for a rehearing. Accordingly, the application for a rehearing is dismissed.
The tenant’s name and identifying details were suppressed in the previous order and that order continues to apply in respect of this order.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The application for a rehearing is dismissed.
The stay is lifted.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing on 31 October 2025.
On 11 August 2025 the Tribunal made an Order for the landlord to refund the bond, refund a rent overpayment, pay exemplary damages and reimburse the filing fee to the tenant. The landlord had failed to lodge the bond and retained the bond on the basis she considered the tenant is liable for the plumber’s fee in respect of the toilet being blocked during the tenancy. The tenant disputed liability for the plumber’s fee. The landlord has at no point filed a cross application in the Tribunal seeking compensation in respect of the plumber’s fee.
On 18 August 2025 the landlord applied for a rehearing of the Tribunal order.
The landlord’s grounds for a rehearing are: a.Since the hearing new information has been obtained in respect of the toilet being blocked, for which she says the tenant is liable for the cost of from the bond, which she holds. b.She disputed the claim that the tenant had overpaid rent – however at this hearing the landlord withdrew this submission and confirmed that the tenant had overpaid rent and she was liable for the rent refund which had been ordered by consent. c.She maintains that the tenant advised her not to lodge the bond, therefore she was justified in not doing so. The landlord says the order and reasons are all are miscarriage of justice
The landlord provided written submissions in support of her application for a rehearing.
The tenant opposes the application for a rehearing and says there are no grounds for a rehearing and notes the landlord has not filed a cross application in respect of the claim for the plumber’s fee.
Both parties provided oral submissions at the hearing.
The issue I must consider is whether a rehearing should be granted. The Law - Rehearings
The relevant law that applies is the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The RTA states the Tribunal has the power to order a rehearing of the whole or any part of the proceedings on the ground that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur. 1
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 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. 2
The applicant need not establish an actual miscarriage of justice or substantial wrong, only that it may have occurred. However, in the District Court Judgment of Wellington City Council v McMillan, 3 Judge Tuohy held that the statutory language set a high standard, and said: [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 1 See s 105 of the RTA. 2 Yogeswaran v Doubletrees Properties Ltd [2021] NZDC 15704 3 Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50 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. [20] 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 any decision twice: once to the very Tribunal which made it 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 that 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.”
A rehearing may be granted where there is new evidence that was not reasonably available at the first hearing, if it could have affected the outcome.
In Rae v International Insurance Brokers (Nelson Marlborough) Ltd 4 , the Court of Appeal set out relevant considerations regarding further evidence: 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 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. 4 Rae v International Insurance Brokers (Nelson Marlborough) Ltd [1998] 3 NZLR 190
The High Court in Angelo v Lehr 5 confirmed that it was not a miscarriage of justice to decline a rehearing just because evidence was not considered at the original hearing, when that evidence could have been produced at the original hearing.
As noted by the District Court in Loh v Puri 6 : In this Court’s view the Tribunal’s reasons for refusing a rehearing are correct. Rehearing’s are about challenges to processes and procedures and are not about what the adjudicator found or the decisions the adjudicator made.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the reasons that follow, I am not satisfied that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice may have occurred.
The fact that the landlord disagrees with the decision is not a ground for a rehearing or to give her a second opportunity to present her case.
The grounds advanced by the landlord, including as outlined in her written submissions and all the evidence provided in support of a rehearing, are a challenge to the Tribunals findings and decisions on the matters before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal process did not disadvantage the landlord in any way.
None of the grounds relate to a procedural error, or improper admission or rejection of evidence in relation to the claims, or misconduct by any person or party that would support a rehearing.
The interests of justice require parties to put their best case forward at the hearing and both parties had ample opportunity to do this.
There is no indication that any relevant or material evidence has been discovered that was not available at the time of hearing that relates to the claims before the Tribunal at the hearing. The landlord has not provided any new evidence which may have changed the outcome.
The landlord’s evidence in respect of the blocked toilet and the evidence the landlord seeks to submit to the Tribunal about this, was and is not relevant to the claims before the Tribunal, as there is no claim for compensation by the landlord for the plumber’s fee.
The landlord has provided no grounds that may be procedural in nature to support the application for a rehearing. While I recognise the landlord will be unhappy with the outcome of the original hearing, that is the outcome. 5 Angelo v Lehr [2022] NZHC 3033 6 Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC 1993 Judge Christiansen
The grounds instead relate to a complaint that the Tribunal was mistaken or wrong in its findings of fact or in its application of the law.
The grounds set out by the landlord may be grounds for an appeal, but are not, in my view, grounds for a rehearing. Accordingly, the application for a rehearing is dismissed.
The tenant’s name and identifying details were suppressed in the previous order and that order continues to apply in respect of this order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5293279 — Exemplary damages at 87 Mortlake Heights, Pyes Pa, Tauranga 3112

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5293279 — Exemplary damages at 87 Mortlake Heights, Pyes Pa, Tauranga 3112

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions