What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5296777?

The tribunal order states: The application for rehearing filed by Barfoot & Thompson Limited Orewa As

How much money was awarded in case 5296777?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5296777?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5296777?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12856365-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5296777?

The tribunal order states: The application for rehearing filed by Barfoot & Thompson Limited Orewa As

How much money was awarded in case 5296777?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5296777?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5296777?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12856365-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

11A McGowan Place, Orewa, Orewa 0931 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5296777 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application for rehearing filed by Barfoot & Thompson Limited Orewa As Agent For Cherrie Jeannine Clark is dismissed.
The bond is fully refunded to the tenant’s as per the Tribunal Order dated 16 October 2025 with clarification below.
The stay of proceedings granted on 29 October 2025 is lifted.

Reasons

The hearing proceeded by way of video conference. Ms Toni Elliott and Ms Nicole Du Toit, Property Managers, appeared for the landlord.
The tenants appeared.
On 16 October 2025 the Tribunal made an order requiring Barfoot & Thompson Limited Orewa As Agent For Cherrie Jeannine Clark to pay bond the bond of $815.51 to Michael Steven Callon and Stephaine Cave immediately. The order also required the Bond Centre to pay the bond of $1,904.49 to Michael Steven Callon and Stephaine Cave immediately.
On 22 October 2025 the landlord applied for a rehearing on the following summarised grounds: a. The Tribunal based their decision on incorrect or incomplete information and/or failed to take into relevant facts result, specifically that a one-party bond claim was correctly lodged with the Bond Centre on 11 April 2025, for tenant damage. The application was made in accordance with section 22(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”). The Bond Centre processed the application and refunded $815.51of the bond to the landlord on 9 May 2025. On that basis the claim was valid and due process was followed. b. The Tribunal failed to consider the procedural timeline. The landlord was not required to file a counterclaim under section 22B(2) of the Act. The landlord’s application to the Bond Centre was filed and processed prior to the tenant’s application to the Tenancy Tribunal. Section 22B(2) of the Act only applies when the tenant applies to the Tribunal first for the release of the bond. c. The landlord seeks a rehearing to enable them to provide the Tribunal with supporting evidence to prove the one-party claim was validly made and processed.
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”.
In the District Court Judgment of 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 e.g. 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 s105 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.”
The High Court in Angelo v Lehr [2022] NZHC 3033, confirmed that is 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.
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. In Jemma Trust v Rutherford (DC North Shore, CIV-2009-044-2056, 11 December 1999), the District Court quoted an extract from the Court of Appeal outlining the relevant considerations: 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 party is 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.
As noted by Judge Christiansen in the District Court appeal of Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC 1993: In this Court’s view the Tribunal’s reasons for refusing a rehearing are correct. Rehearings are about challenges to processes and procedures and are not about what the adjudicator found or the decisions the adjudicator made.
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.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons Barfoot & Thompson Limited Orewa As Agent For Cherrie Jeannine Clark has failed to establish the grounds for rehearing.
At the original hearing the tenant’s told the Tribunal that they never received any notice from the bond Centre advising them that a one-party claim for refund of the bond had been submitted by Barfoot & Thompson Limited Orewa As Agent For Cherrie Jeannine Clark. The tribunal accepted this.
At the original hearing the Tribunal heard that the tenant’s had disputed the landlord’s claim on the bond for compensation for damages, which was supported by evidence. The Tribunal accepted this.
The Tribunal accepts that Barfoot & Thompson Limited Orewa As Agent For Cherrie Jeannine Clark filed their application for a one-party refund of the bond under section 22A of the Act first in time and successfully received a partial refund of the bond.
Section 22A of the Act does not preclude a tenant from making an application under section 22B of the Act where and the tenant has not received proper notification from the Bond Centre of the one-party claim on the bond.
As the tenant did not receive proper notice from the Bond Centre, they were not given the opportunity to dispute the landlord’s claim.
The Tenancy Tribunal has the authority to make an order regarding they payment of bond, overriding any prior payments made without proper process. Without evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal accepted the tenants via voce evidence that proper process had not been followed and on that basis, they had not been given the opportunity to challenge the landlord’s claim.
The notice of hearing was sent on 18 August 2025 with the hearing taking place on 16 October 2025. The landlord had adequate time to prepare for the hearing and provide all evidence relating to the one-party bond claim which would have been available to them. The landlord had adequate time to file a counterclaim under section 22B(2) of the Act.
The landlord did not file a counter claim with evidence proving their claim to a portion of the bond under section 22B(2) of the Act.
In making any decision it is for the Adjudicator to determine whose evidence is preferred.
Both parties provided evidence during the original hearing and had the opportunity to respond to the evidence of the other party.
The interests of justice require parties to put their best cases forward at the hearing and both parties had ample opportunity to do this.
The fact that the landlord disagrees with the decision, and the application of the law to the facts is not a grounds for rehearing.
I consider no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred which justifies a rehearing.
A rehearing is not an alternative to an appeal. If the landlord is dissatisfied with the decision, then the appropriate course of action would have been from them to appeal the decision.
For the avoidance of doubt, the Order of the Tribunal dated 16 October 2025 remains in full force and effect.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5296777 — Tenancy dispute at 11A McGowan Place, Orewa, Orewa 0931

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5296777 — Tenancy dispute at 11A McGowan Place, Orewa, Orewa 0931

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions