What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5310959 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5310959?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5310959?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5310959?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12896217-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5310959 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5310959?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5310959?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5310959?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12896217-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

26 Manuka Road, Huntly, Huntly 3700 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5310959 — Rent arrears

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The landlord’s application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video conference hearing on 17 December 2025 to consider the landlord’s rehearing application.
On 8 October 2025 I ordered the landlord to pay exemplary damages for breach of section 19 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’) in respect of duties pertaining to bond lodgment.
The landlord applied for a rehearing on grounds that she has evidence to support her submission that the tenant has asked her to hold on to the bond rather than lodge it with the bond centre.
The landlord produced 3 text messages in November 2023 and August 2024 which suggested that the tenant may have asked the landlord to hold onto the bond or use the bond to pay rent.
However, my findings and reasons for why the landlord should be ordered to pay exemplary damages for breach of her obligations in respect of bond lodgment remain unchanged. Legal principles on determination of an application for rehearing
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.
In Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, Judge Tuohy considered the provision “a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur” to be strong words which set a high standard and most obviously apply to cases of procedural error or discovery of new evidence.
Those words however cannot cover a complaint that Tenancy Tribunal was merely mistaken or wrong in its findings of fact or application of law. Where the grounds relied on in application for rehearing are complaints about legal correctness of decision they should have been dealt with by way of appeal. No distinction can be made between errors of law that are grave enough to constitute a substantial miscarriage of justice and those which are not.
More recently, in Scott v Sidhu [2024] NZDC 1549, Judge Harrop dealt with 2 appeals from the Tenancy Tribunal, one in respect of the substantive decision awarding, inter alia, general damages against the landlord and the other, the decision refusing the landlord’s application for rehearing.
Judge Harrop dealt with the landlord’s appeal against the refusal to grant her a rehearing first because if that appeal was upheld, the obvious remedy would be to grant the rehearing and the matter would be referred back to the Tribunal to be heard by a different adjudicator.
Considering the substantive points raised by the appellant on why her application for a rehearing should have been granted, Judge Harrop held at [25] that the Tribunal’s obvious focus under section 105(1) RTA is on the fairness of the hearing process and in respect of complaints about the substance of the Tribunal’s decision, as opposed to the process by which it was reached, there are, of course, appeal rights to address those.
Judge Harrop reiterated that the merits of the case are able to be and have been challenged by the landlord in her appeal against the substantive decision.
In dismissing the landlord’s rehearing appeal, Judge Harrop accepted the Tribunal’s assessment that many of the landlord’s criticisms relate to the merits of the case (rather than the process) which merits of the case were later considered by the learned judge under the appeal against the substantive decision.
On the appeal against the substantive decision, it is noteworthy that Judge Harrop ultimately found that the Tribunal was wrong to have awarded general damages of $500 for breach of section 38(2) against the landlord and allowed part of the landlord’s appeal against the substantive decision and quashed that award of general damages against the landlord accordingly.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

The landlord failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
There are no new evidence nor materials adduced which might affect the outcome of the previous hearing and my order dated 8 October 2025.
The submissions provided by the landlord in support of her rehearing application do not affect my determination that the onus remained on the landlord to lodge the full bond within the 23 working days as set out under section 19(1) RTA.
The obligation by the landlord to lodge the bond is not ameliorated by the purported agreement with the tenant to keep the money for a rainy day. The tenant continues to deny ever agreeing or asking the landlord to not lodge the bond. The text messages adduced by the landlord during the rehearing application have still not satisfied me that the tenant did ask or agree for the bond not to be lodged. The text request in August 2024 by the tenant could equally refer to taking money out of the bond centre towards rent arrears rather than the bond from the landlord’s account. The November 2023 text by the tenant to potentially use the bond towards the first 2 weeks’ rent no longer mattered because WINZ had paid those 2 weeks’ rent in advance to the landlord and therefore there were no arrears at the start, and there was no need for the landlord to hold onto the bond without lodging it.
Having alleged that she had the tenant’s agreement to keep the funds in her own bank account (which explanation I expressly reject), it is obvious that the landlord did know that she was required to lodge the bond in the first place. This ground and reasoning for the award of maximum exemplary damages against the landlord remains.
The landlord then only lodged half of the bond 18 months into the tenancy, rather than the full amount.
Considering the landlord’s intent in failing to lodge the bond, the effect of the unlawful act on the tenant, the interests of the other party/tenant, and the public interest that the full and entire bond is lodged within the allocated time, I remain satisfied it would be just to award exemplary damages on the highest level of the scale of $1,500.
The landlord’s breach in respect of her bond obligations was further exacerbated by her conduct of altering the bond refund form submitted to the Bond Centre for the refund of the lodged bond of $1,500 in July 2025.
There is ultimately nothing before me which affects the outcome of my substantive order for awarding exemplary damages on the highest level of the scale of $1,500 against the landlord.
Following Judge Tuohy’s ruling in McMillan, complaints about legal correctness of a decision should be dealt with by way of appeal rather than an application for rehearing and no distinction can be made between errors of law that are grave enough to constitute a substantial miscarriage of justice and those which are not.
Following Judge Harrop’s ruling in Scott, my focus under section 105(1) RTA is on the fairness of the hearing process rather than on complaints about the merits of my substantive decision. I consider the grounds raised by the landlord are really complaints about the merits of the decision rather than the process by which it was reached, in which case there are appeal rights to address those.
Ultimately, all the substantive points raised by the landlord in the initial hearing and the present application for rehearing have been duly canvassed, and determined, albeit they were against the landlord.
The landlord has not provided any new or previously unavailable evidence which might change the original outcome of the hearing.
For these reasons there is no basis for a rehearing.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name and identifying details.
The landlord’s application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video conference hearing on 17 December 2025 to consider the landlord’s rehearing application.
On 8 October 2025 I ordered the landlord to pay exemplary damages for breach of section 19 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (‘RTA’) in respect of duties pertaining to bond lodgment.
The landlord applied for a rehearing on grounds that she has evidence to support her submission that the tenant has asked her to hold on to the bond rather than lodge it with the bond centre.
The landlord produced 3 text messages in November 2023 and August 2024 which suggested that the tenant may have asked the landlord to hold onto the bond or use the bond to pay rent.
However, my findings and reasons for why the landlord should be ordered to pay exemplary damages for breach of her obligations in respect of bond lodgment remain unchanged. Legal principles on determination of an application for rehearing
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.
In Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, Judge Tuohy considered the provision “a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur” to be strong words which set a high standard and most obviously apply to cases of procedural error or discovery of new evidence.
Those words however cannot cover a complaint that Tenancy Tribunal was merely mistaken or wrong in its findings of fact or application of law. Where the grounds relied on in application for rehearing are complaints about legal correctness of decision they should have been dealt with by way of appeal. No distinction can be made between errors of law that are grave enough to constitute a substantial miscarriage of justice and those which are not.
More recently, in Scott v Sidhu [2024] NZDC 1549, Judge Harrop dealt with 2 appeals from the Tenancy Tribunal, one in respect of the substantive decision awarding, inter alia, general damages against the landlord and the other, the decision refusing the landlord’s application for rehearing.
Judge Harrop dealt with the landlord’s appeal against the refusal to grant her a rehearing first because if that appeal was upheld, the obvious remedy would be to grant the rehearing and the matter would be referred back to the Tribunal to be heard by a different adjudicator.
Considering the substantive points raised by the appellant on why her application for a rehearing should have been granted, Judge Harrop held at [25] that the Tribunal’s obvious focus under section 105(1) RTA is on the fairness of the hearing process and in respect of complaints about the substance of the Tribunal’s decision, as opposed to the process by which it was reached, there are, of course, appeal rights to address those.
Judge Harrop reiterated that the merits of the case are able to be and have been challenged by the landlord in her appeal against the substantive decision.
In dismissing the landlord’s rehearing appeal, Judge Harrop accepted the Tribunal’s assessment that many of the landlord’s criticisms relate to the merits of the case (rather than the process) which merits of the case were later considered by the learned judge under the appeal against the substantive decision.
On the appeal against the substantive decision, it is noteworthy that Judge Harrop ultimately found that the Tribunal was wrong to have awarded general damages of $500 for breach of section 38(2) against the landlord and allowed part of the landlord’s appeal against the substantive decision and quashed that award of general damages against the landlord accordingly.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

The landlord failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
There are no new evidence nor materials adduced which might affect the outcome of the previous hearing and my order dated 8 October 2025.
The submissions provided by the landlord in support of her rehearing application do not affect my determination that the onus remained on the landlord to lodge the full bond within the 23 working days as set out under section 19(1) RTA.
The obligation by the landlord to lodge the bond is not ameliorated by the purported agreement with the tenant to keep the money for a rainy day. The tenant continues to deny ever agreeing or asking the landlord to not lodge the bond. The text messages adduced by the landlord during the rehearing application have still not satisfied me that the tenant did ask or agree for the bond not to be lodged. The text request in August 2024 by the tenant could equally refer to taking money out of the bond centre towards rent arrears rather than the bond from the landlord’s account. The November 2023 text by the tenant to potentially use the bond towards the first 2 weeks’ rent no longer mattered because WINZ had paid those 2 weeks’ rent in advance to the landlord and therefore there were no arrears at the start, and there was no need for the landlord to hold onto the bond without lodging it.
Having alleged that she had the tenant’s agreement to keep the funds in her own bank account (which explanation I expressly reject), it is obvious that the landlord did know that she was required to lodge the bond in the first place. This ground and reasoning for the award of maximum exemplary damages against the landlord remains.
The landlord then only lodged half of the bond 18 months into the tenancy, rather than the full amount.
Considering the landlord’s intent in failing to lodge the bond, the effect of the unlawful act on the tenant, the interests of the other party/tenant, and the public interest that the full and entire bond is lodged within the allocated time, I remain satisfied it would be just to award exemplary damages on the highest level of the scale of $1,500.
The landlord’s breach in respect of her bond obligations was further exacerbated by her conduct of altering the bond refund form submitted to the Bond Centre for the refund of the lodged bond of $1,500 in July 2025.
There is ultimately nothing before me which affects the outcome of my substantive order for awarding exemplary damages on the highest level of the scale of $1,500 against the landlord.
Following Judge Tuohy’s ruling in McMillan, complaints about legal correctness of a decision should be dealt with by way of appeal rather than an application for rehearing and no distinction can be made between errors of law that are grave enough to constitute a substantial miscarriage of justice and those which are not.
Following Judge Harrop’s ruling in Scott, my focus under section 105(1) RTA is on the fairness of the hearing process rather than on complaints about the merits of my substantive decision. I consider the grounds raised by the landlord are really complaints about the merits of the decision rather than the process by which it was reached, in which case there are appeal rights to address those.
Ultimately, all the substantive points raised by the landlord in the initial hearing and the present application for rehearing have been duly canvassed, and determined, albeit they were against the landlord.
The landlord has not provided any new or previously unavailable evidence which might change the original outcome of the hearing.
For these reasons there is no basis for a rehearing.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5310959 — Rent arrears at 26 Manuka Road, Huntly, Huntly 3700

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5310959 — Rent arrears at 26 Manuka Road, Huntly, Huntly 3700

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

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions