What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5294683 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application for a rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5294683?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5294683?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5294683?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12647612-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5294683 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application for a rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5294683?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5294683?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5294683?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12647612-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

16B Hilda Road, Favona, Auckland 2024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5294683 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The tenant’s application for a rehearing is dismissed.
The stay of proceedings ordered on 14 October 2025 is lifted.
The Order of 30 September 2025 is amended so that the possession order takes effect from today’s date.

Reasons

The hearing took place at Manukau District Court on 30 October 2025. The tenant attended the hearing with his two daughters, Adele Tuhega and Suzanne Broughton, to support him. Mr Temu, Ms McKee and Ms Maturan-Abuid attended the hearing for the landlord. An interpreter attended the hearing to assist the Tribunal.
On 30 September 2025, following a hearing on 26 September 2025, the Tribunal made an Order terminating the tenancy and granting the landlord possession of the premises at 11:59pm on 02 October 2025.
On 02 October 2025, the tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that a substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred or was likely to occur.
The landlord has asked if the Tribunal does not grant the tenant’s application for a rehearing that the date for the possession order be amended to the date of this Order. The landlord’s application for the possession order to take effect from the date of this Order:
The landlord had emailed the Tribunal in advance of the hearing asking that if the tenant was unsuccessful in his application for a rehearing, the date of the possession order be amended to the date of the Order, so that the landlord had a further 90 days to enforce the possession Order. This email was read aloud by the Interpreter during the hearing for the tenant.
As this request, if anything, is in the tenant’s favour and the tenant did not object to the request, the Order of 30 September 2025 is amended by consent. This means that the landlord has 90 days from today’s date, 02 November 2025, to enforce the possession order. Should the tenant’s application for a rehearing be granted?
Section 105(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 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.
In his application for a rehearing and during the hearing on 30 October 2025, the tenant referred to the landlord’s claim that he had threatened the landlord’s contractor. It was explained to the tenant that this claim was dismissed. 1 Even if it had not been, if the tenant disagreed with the Tribunal’s findings in fact or in law then the appropriate course of action was to appeal the matter to the District Court, not to request a rehearing. 1 See paragraph [27] of the Tribunal’s Orders of 30 September 2025, Kāinga Ora Homes and Communities v [The tenant/s] [2025] NZTT 5294683.
The tenant claims that he was disadvantaged at the hearing on 26 September 2025 because he had not received the documents in advance of the hearing. I accept that the tenant had not received the documents in advance of the hearing and that he had asked for the hearing to be adjourned so that he could review the documents. I do not consider that the tenant was disadvantaged by not receiving the documents. The tenant was provided with the documents and time to read them at the start of the hearing. The tenant said that as he did not speak English fluently, this was not sufficient to mitigate the disadvantage. However, in addition to allowing the tenant time to read the documents, I also made it clear at the start of the hearing that I would only consider documents that were read aloud during the hearing. All documents that were considered were read aloud during the hearing. I do not consider that given the accommodations that were made, the tenant was disadvantaged by not having received the documents in advance of the hearing.
The tenant’s other ground for a rehearing was that one of the landlord’s witnesses, Ms Steel, spoke and/or sat with the landlord’s representatives prior to the hearing and/or at breaks during the hearing. If Ms Steel was speaking and/or sitting with the landlord’s representatives prior to the hearing and or during breaks, I do not consider that this amounts to a procedural wrong or a miscarriage of justice.
This is not a situation where a party had communicated with its witness while the witness was under oath. In accordance with section 97 of the RTA, Ms Steel made a statement promising to tell the truth immediately prior to giving evidence at the hearing. When she was telephoned later that day for some follow up questions, Ms Steel made a statement promising to tell the truth again.
In his application for a rehearing, the tenant referenced another person being a tenant. The landlord said that the tenancy agreement of 10 March 1998 is the tenancy agreement for the premises. This agreement records and tenant and his (now deceased) wife as the tenant. The tenant said that there was further paperwork where one or more of his daughters had been listed as tenant(s) on the tenancy agreement. The landlord said this was incorrect but that they may have been recorded as residents or household members.
In any event, the tenant confirmed that he is the only person residing at the premises and that he was not claiming a rehearing should be granted because the correct parties had not been named on the application.
The tenant’s claim for a rehearing is dismissed.
The stay that was ordered on 30 September 2025 is lifted.

Order

The tenant’s application for a rehearing is dismissed.
The stay of proceedings ordered on 14 October 2025 is lifted.
The Order of 30 September 2025 is amended so that the possession order takes effect from today’s date.

Reasons

The hearing took place at Manukau District Court on 30 October 2025. The tenant attended the hearing with his two daughters, Adele Tuhega and Suzanne Broughton, to support him. Mr Temu, Ms McKee and Ms Maturan-Abuid attended the hearing for the landlord. An interpreter attended the hearing to assist the Tribunal.
On 30 September 2025, following a hearing on 26 September 2025, the Tribunal made an Order terminating the tenancy and granting the landlord possession of the premises at 11:59pm on 02 October 2025.
On 02 October 2025, the tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that a substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred or was likely to occur.
The landlord has asked if the Tribunal does not grant the tenant’s application for a rehearing that the date for the possession order be amended to the date of this Order. The landlord’s application for the possession order to take effect from the date of this Order:
The landlord had emailed the Tribunal in advance of the hearing asking that if the tenant was unsuccessful in his application for a rehearing, the date of the possession order be amended to the date of the Order, so that the landlord had a further 90 days to enforce the possession Order. This email was read aloud by the Interpreter during the hearing for the tenant.
As this request, if anything, is in the tenant’s favour and the tenant did not object to the request, the Order of 30 September 2025 is amended by consent. This means that the landlord has 90 days from today’s date, 02 November 2025, to enforce the possession order. Should the tenant’s application for a rehearing be granted?
Section 105(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 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.
In his application for a rehearing and during the hearing on 30 October 2025, the tenant referred to the landlord’s claim that he had threatened the landlord’s contractor. It was explained to the tenant that this claim was dismissed. 1 Even if it had not been, if the tenant disagreed with the Tribunal’s findings in fact or in law then the appropriate course of action was to appeal the matter to the District Court, not to request a rehearing. 1 See paragraph [27] of the Tribunal’s Orders of 30 September 2025, Kāinga Ora Homes and Communities v [The tenant/s] [2025] NZTT 5294683.
The tenant claims that he was disadvantaged at the hearing on 26 September 2025 because he had not received the documents in advance of the hearing. I accept that the tenant had not received the documents in advance of the hearing and that he had asked for the hearing to be adjourned so that he could review the documents. I do not consider that the tenant was disadvantaged by not receiving the documents. The tenant was provided with the documents and time to read them at the start of the hearing. The tenant said that as he did not speak English fluently, this was not sufficient to mitigate the disadvantage. However, in addition to allowing the tenant time to read the documents, I also made it clear at the start of the hearing that I would only consider documents that were read aloud during the hearing. All documents that were considered were read aloud during the hearing. I do not consider that given the accommodations that were made, the tenant was disadvantaged by not having received the documents in advance of the hearing.
The tenant’s other ground for a rehearing was that one of the landlord’s witnesses, Ms Steel, spoke and/or sat with the landlord’s representatives prior to the hearing and/or at breaks during the hearing. If Ms Steel was speaking and/or sitting with the landlord’s representatives prior to the hearing and or during breaks, I do not consider that this amounts to a procedural wrong or a miscarriage of justice.
This is not a situation where a party had communicated with its witness while the witness was under oath. In accordance with section 97 of the RTA, Ms Steel made a statement promising to tell the truth immediately prior to giving evidence at the hearing. When she was telephoned later that day for some follow up questions, Ms Steel made a statement promising to tell the truth again.
In his application for a rehearing, the tenant referenced another person being a tenant. The landlord said that the tenancy agreement of 10 March 1998 is the tenancy agreement for the premises. This agreement records and tenant and his (now deceased) wife as the tenant. The tenant said that there was further paperwork where one or more of his daughters had been listed as tenant(s) on the tenancy agreement. The landlord said this was incorrect but that they may have been recorded as residents or household members.
In any event, the tenant confirmed that he is the only person residing at the premises and that he was not claiming a rehearing should be granted because the correct parties had not been named on the application.
The tenant’s claim for a rehearing is dismissed.
The stay that was ordered on 30 September 2025 is lifted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5294683 — Tenancy dispute at 16B Hilda Road, Favona, Auckland 2024

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5294683 — Tenancy dispute at 16B Hilda Road, Favona, Auckland 2024

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions