What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5301994 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlords’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must

How much money was awarded in case 5301994?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5301994?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5301994?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13156823-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5301994 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlords’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must

How much money was awarded in case 5301994?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5301994?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5301994?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13156823-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

[Street address], Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5301994 — Healthy homes

Order

The landlords’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must not be published .
Tom Lee’s application for a rehearing is refused.

Reasons

The landlords attended the hearing for themselves.
The tenant attended for himself.
The tenant has applied for a rehearing of the Tribunal’s decision of 5 November 2025. Background
In this case, the tenancy lasted for little over a month. During that time, the house was substantially damaged by being converted for the purposes of an illegal cannabis growing operation. Police discovered the operation, and the house was left damaged, unclean, and tidy.
The tenant had also filed a cross-application for the landlords failing to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards for ventilation.
At the original hearing, the tenant failed to attend or to explain his non-attendance. The hearing proceeded in his absence.
After the hearing, the Tribunal found the landlords claim proven. It found the tenant liable for the damage and ordered him to pay the landlords $34,168.71 for the damage and the related expenses they incurred. The Tribunal dismissed the tenant’s claim for want of prosecution.
The tenant says he did not attend the original hearing because he was unwell on the morning of the hearing. He wants to put forward the explanation that he sublet the premises and didn’t know that the premises was being misused in the way it was. Legal principles
Section 105(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides: The Tribunal shall in all proceedings have 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.
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.
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 the party did not receive notice of the hearing and therefore failed to appear. Where a party fails to appear the following factors ought to be considered when determining whether or not to set a judgement aside and rehear the matter: 1 a. Was the party's failure to appear excusable? b. When the party became aware of the judgement entered against him, did he move promptly to set it aside? c.Is there a defence which ought to be heard? d. Will the other party suffer irreparable harm if the judgement is set aside? Discussion
It is not clear that the tenants’ non-attendance was excusable. The tenant has not provided any medical evidence to support his claim that he was unwell. He did not contact the Tribunal on the day which suggests a deliberate decision not to attend.
The tenant lodged his application for rehearing seven days after the decision. That was prompt enough to be within the statutory framework albeit not made with alacrity.
The tenant’s explanation that he sublet the premises to his client for his client’s employees to live in does not provide a defence because tenants are liable for occupants who are in the premises with the tenant’s permission. 2
The landlords would not suffer irreparable harm by the decision being set aside because a later decision would likely be to the same effect. It would just mean justice delayed.
Importantly, there is not miscarriage of just or substantial wrong when the “defence” the tenant would have advanced at hearing would have failed. The tenant’s claim against the landlords for breaching the Healthy Homes regulation is misconceived and does not warrant further consideration. 1 Russell v Cox [1983] NZLR 654). See Barfoot & Thompson v Butcher NZTT [2021] NZTT 4109463 for an application of Russell v Cox. 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) ss 41(1), and 49B(1).
I note, the tenant does have a remedy against his client. He is a sublandlord apropos his client who is a subtenant. Therefore the tenant can bring a claim against his client under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 3 Conclusion
The grounds for allowing a rehearing are not made out.
The application is dismissed. Non-publication
The landlords’ details must not be published for the reasons given in the original decision.

Order

The landlords’ names and identifying details including the tenancy address must not be published .
Tom Lee’s application for a rehearing is refused.

Reasons

The landlords attended the hearing for themselves.
The tenant attended for himself.
The tenant has applied for a rehearing of the Tribunal’s decision of 5 November 2025. Background
In this case, the tenancy lasted for little over a month. During that time, the house was substantially damaged by being converted for the purposes of an illegal cannabis growing operation. Police discovered the operation, and the house was left damaged, unclean, and tidy.
The tenant had also filed a cross-application for the landlords failing to comply with the Healthy Homes Standards for ventilation.
At the original hearing, the tenant failed to attend or to explain his non-attendance. The hearing proceeded in his absence.
After the hearing, the Tribunal found the landlords claim proven. It found the tenant liable for the damage and ordered him to pay the landlords $34,168.71 for the damage and the related expenses they incurred. The Tribunal dismissed the tenant’s claim for want of prosecution.
The tenant says he did not attend the original hearing because he was unwell on the morning of the hearing. He wants to put forward the explanation that he sublet the premises and didn’t know that the premises was being misused in the way it was. Legal principles
Section 105(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides: The Tribunal shall in all proceedings have 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.
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.
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 the party did not receive notice of the hearing and therefore failed to appear. Where a party fails to appear the following factors ought to be considered when determining whether or not to set a judgement aside and rehear the matter: 1 a. Was the party's failure to appear excusable? b. When the party became aware of the judgement entered against him, did he move promptly to set it aside? c.Is there a defence which ought to be heard? d. Will the other party suffer irreparable harm if the judgement is set aside? Discussion
It is not clear that the tenants’ non-attendance was excusable. The tenant has not provided any medical evidence to support his claim that he was unwell. He did not contact the Tribunal on the day which suggests a deliberate decision not to attend.
The tenant lodged his application for rehearing seven days after the decision. That was prompt enough to be within the statutory framework albeit not made with alacrity.
The tenant’s explanation that he sublet the premises to his client for his client’s employees to live in does not provide a defence because tenants are liable for occupants who are in the premises with the tenant’s permission. 2
The landlords would not suffer irreparable harm by the decision being set aside because a later decision would likely be to the same effect. It would just mean justice delayed.
Importantly, there is not miscarriage of just or substantial wrong when the “defence” the tenant would have advanced at hearing would have failed. The tenant’s claim against the landlords for breaching the Healthy Homes regulation is misconceived and does not warrant further consideration. 1 Russell v Cox [1983] NZLR 654). See Barfoot & Thompson v Butcher NZTT [2021] NZTT 4109463 for an application of Russell v Cox. 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) ss 41(1), and 49B(1).
I note, the tenant does have a remedy against his client. He is a sublandlord apropos his client who is a subtenant. Therefore the tenant can bring a claim against his client under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 3 Conclusion
The grounds for allowing a rehearing are not made out.
The application is dismissed. Non-publication
The landlords’ details must not be published for the reasons given in the original decision.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5301994 — Healthy homes at [Street address], Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5301994 — Healthy homes at [Street address], Te Atatu South, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions