What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5296769 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5296769?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5296769?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5296769?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12488003-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5296769 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5296769?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5296769?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5296769?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12488003-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

17 Landview Road, Parkvale, Tauranga 3112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5296769 — Leaks

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via teleconference.
On 14 August 2025, the Tribunal made an order that the bond was to be split $940.36 to the landlord, and the remaining $1,241.72 to the tenants. The Tribunal had considered claims for compensation by both parties.
On 21 August 2025, the landlord applied for a rehearing on multiple grounds.
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.
The High Court has confirmed that it is 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. 1
Applicants need to show a considerable, overwhelming and obvious wrong, or a complete failure of justice, 2 which clearly sets a high evidential bar.
The tenants say this application should be dismissed. They believe that the issues raised by the landlord have already been discussed and there is nothing new.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

The landlord says a rehearing should be granted as she has new evidence from plumbers about the lack of any leaks. The landlord has provided copies of emails and text messages about the lack of notification from the tenants.
For the following reasons, the landlord has failed to establish sufficient the grounds for a rehearing. (a) The landlord has now produced statements from two plumbers. She says she did not think to provide them at the time of the hearing as she believed her evidence was sufficient, but it became obvious after the hearing they should have been provided. I find that these statements were reasonably available at the first hearing. The landlord is seeking to perfect her original submissions and have a second opportunity to present her case. This does not form sufficient grounds for rehearing. (b) The emails and text messages were provided for the first hearing. Whilst I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. This does not form sufficient grounds for rehearing. (c) The landlord refers to evidence of property upkeep and maintenance. Again, similar or the same type of evidence was already provided for the first hearing. This does not form sufficient grounds for rehearing. (d) The landlord is clearly unhappy with the decision. To summarise, she submits that if the evidence from the tenants had been weighed correctly, the Tribunal would have reached different conclusions. I do not agree. In any event, a 1 Angelo v Lehr [2022] NZHC 3033 at [73]. 2 WG & M Scott Family Trust v Webbers Cleaning Service NZTT 231/93, 8 November 1993. rehearing will be refused where the party simply argues that the decision was wrong, or that their evidence should have been preferred. 3
I do not find any substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur therefore the application for rehearing is dismissed.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via teleconference.
On 14 August 2025, the Tribunal made an order that the bond was to be split $940.36 to the landlord, and the remaining $1,241.72 to the tenants. The Tribunal had considered claims for compensation by both parties.
On 21 August 2025, the landlord applied for a rehearing on multiple grounds.
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.
The High Court has confirmed that it is 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. 1
Applicants need to show a considerable, overwhelming and obvious wrong, or a complete failure of justice, 2 which clearly sets a high evidential bar.
The tenants say this application should be dismissed. They believe that the issues raised by the landlord have already been discussed and there is nothing new.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

The landlord says a rehearing should be granted as she has new evidence from plumbers about the lack of any leaks. The landlord has provided copies of emails and text messages about the lack of notification from the tenants.
For the following reasons, the landlord has failed to establish sufficient the grounds for a rehearing. (a) The landlord has now produced statements from two plumbers. She says she did not think to provide them at the time of the hearing as she believed her evidence was sufficient, but it became obvious after the hearing they should have been provided. I find that these statements were reasonably available at the first hearing. The landlord is seeking to perfect her original submissions and have a second opportunity to present her case. This does not form sufficient grounds for rehearing. (b) The emails and text messages were provided for the first hearing. Whilst I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. This does not form sufficient grounds for rehearing. (c) The landlord refers to evidence of property upkeep and maintenance. Again, similar or the same type of evidence was already provided for the first hearing. This does not form sufficient grounds for rehearing. (d) The landlord is clearly unhappy with the decision. To summarise, she submits that if the evidence from the tenants had been weighed correctly, the Tribunal would have reached different conclusions. I do not agree. In any event, a 1 Angelo v Lehr [2022] NZHC 3033 at [73]. 2 WG & M Scott Family Trust v Webbers Cleaning Service NZTT 231/93, 8 November 1993. rehearing will be refused where the party simply argues that the decision was wrong, or that their evidence should have been preferred. 3
I do not find any substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur therefore the application for rehearing is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5296769 — Leaks at 17 Landview Road, Parkvale, Tauranga 3112

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5296769 — Leaks at 17 Landview Road, Parkvale, 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

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.