What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5301642 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5301642?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5301642?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5301642?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13887192-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5301642 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5301642?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5301642?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5301642?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13887192-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 1, 218 Pakuranga Road, Pakuranga Heights, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5301642 — Exemplary damages

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

On 9 February 2026, I issued an order finding the Tribunal had jurisdiction. The reason for this was that I found that the area of the premises occupied by the tenant formed its own premises, separate from and independent to the main premises occupied by the landlord. For this reason, I found section 5(1)(n) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) did not apply.
The substantive hearing occurred on 1 April 2026. On 24 April 2026, the Tribunal ordered the landlord to pay the tenant $1,978.00 in compensation and exemplary damages.
On 30 April 2026, the landlord applied for a rehearing.
On 3 July 2026, a consideration hearing was held with both parties in attendance. The landlord was assisted by a Mandarin interpreter.
The sole issue I must determine is whether a rehearing should be granted.
The landlord gave a lot of evidence and made submissions about why a rehearing should be granted at the hearing on 3 July 2026. A lot of what the landlord said related to characterisations of the tenant’s behaviour in general during the tenancy. Whilst I have considered everything the landlord said at the hearing, this decision only discusses the relevant parts of the landlord’s evidence and submissions that relate to their claim for a rehearing. The law
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”.
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. 1 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 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 [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 eg 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 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. 1 Yogeswaran v Doubletree Properties Ltd [2021] NZDC 15704 [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 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. 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. Evidence and submissions of the parties
The landlord claims that a rehearing should be granted because I was wrong to find that the Tribunal has jurisdiction. The landlord claims that the conclusion I reached, namely that the part of the premises occupied by the tenant formed its own premises, separate from and independent to the main household, is incorrect. The reasons for this are as follows: a. The landlord provided the tenant with a microwave and hotplate, but the tenant was permitted to use the main kitchen and in fact did so. The landlord claims that they have new evidence in the form of three witnesses, who will give evidence that the tenant used the kitchen in the main premises during the tenancy. b. The landlord has new evidence in the form of text messages from the tenant to the landlord, which confirm that the part of the premises occupied by the tenant did not have a proper kitchen. c. The tenant was provided with three keys, one of which gave him access to the entire house. d. The tenant did not pay utilities separate from the rent. The rent charged to the tenant included the use of water, electricity and internet. e. There was no separate address for the part of the premises occupied by the tenant. f. The granny flat in Clare Dina Harding v Monica Schellevis & Ors [2021[ NZHC 1265 [1 June 2021] is physically separate from the main premises in way in which the area occupied by the tenant is not.
The landlord also claims that they have evidence in the form of a document signed by the tenant, in which the tenant states that they are “boarding.” The landlord claims this confirms the fact that the arrangement between the landlord and tenant was one of flatmates, not landlord and tenant. The landlord claims the fact that there was no tenancy agreement or bond lodged with the Bond Centre further proves the relationship was one of flatmates, not landlord and tenant.
The landlord claims that the reason this new evidence was not presented at the first hearing, was because the landlord is inexperienced and did not know that they needed to provide such evidence. The landlord also claims that they were unaware of the relevant law and existence of section 5(1)(n) RTA.
The landlord also claims that I was wrong to find that they terminated the tenancy without grounds. The landlord claims that they could not have ended the tenancy in circumstances where they knew they were not allowed to, because they did not appreciate the fact that this was a tenancy at the time. The landlord also claims that they sought the advice of Tenancy Services at the time they gave the termination notice and were advised by them that the relationship was not covered by the RTA. Further, the landlord claims they have text messages sent from the tenant after the landlord sent the termination notice, in which the tenant says they have found somewhere else to move to.
The tenant opposes the landlord’s application for a rehearing. Analysis
The landlord’s claim that I was wrong to find that the Tribunal has jurisdiction, and that the landlord terminated the tenancy without grounds reflects a disagreement with the substance of the decision. This does not amount to a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice. As the District Court held in Loh v Puri, rehearings are about challenges to the processes and procedures, not about what the adjudicator found or the decisions the adjudicator made.
None of the new evidence referred to by the landlord is fresh, because it could have been provided with reasonable diligence at the time of the hearing on 30 January 2026 or 1 April 2026. There are no exceptional circumstances or compelling reasons to allow the landlord to admit the evidence after the fact either.
The majority of people who appear before the Tribunal are not legally trained and do not have experience in preparing for and participating in legal proceedings. The landlord knew about the tenant’s application as early as 31 July 2025 when it was emailed to them. The jurisdictional hearing did not occur until 30 January 2026, approximately 6 months later. A case conference was held on 18 September 2025 and an order issued on this date. The order states that the issue the Tribunal needs to determine is whether section 5(1)(n) RTA applies. The landlord’s submission that they were unaware of section 5(1)(n) RTA cannot be sustained in light of the order. The landlord had more than enough time to seek legal advice and assistance to help them prepare for both hearings on 30 January 2026 and 1 April 2026. They chose not to do this.
The new evidence referred to by the landlord, even if admitted, is also unlikely to result in a different outcome. The fact that the tenant referred to themselves as “boarding” is not determinative of the nature of the relationship between the parties. The Tribunal looks behind labels to determine the true nature of the relationship. Any advice the landlord received about the nature of the relationship between the parties, whether from Tenancy Services or elsewhere, is also not determinative. I am not bound by the opinions given to the landlord by third parties. Further, even if the tenant used the main kitchen during the tenancy, this does not change the fact that they had their own bedroom, bathroom, entrance and were provided with a microwave and hotplate by the landlord. All of this evidence points towards the conclusion that the tenant lived in premises that were separate from and independent to the main premises.
The landlord received the notice of hearing and tenant’s application on 31 July 2025. In an order dated 18 September 2025, they were advised that the Tribunal needed to determine whether section 5(1)(n) RTA applied at the next hearing. In an order dated 9 February 2026, all of the tenant’s claims and relevant sections of the RTA were summarised for the landlord and the substantive hearing occurred on 1 April 2026, two months later. The landlord attended every hearing and was assisted by an interpreter. They were also supported by their husband. Nothing went wrong with the Tribunal’s procedure. What the landlord is now seeking is a second opportunity to better present their case. That is not the purpose of a rehearing.
For all of these reasons, I am not convinced that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred.
The landlord’s application for rehearing is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5301642 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 218 Pakuranga Road, Pakuranga Heights,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5301642 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat Flat 1, 218 Pakuranga Road, Pakuranga Heights,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions