Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5316285 — Tenancy dispute at 34 Hythe Terrace, Mairangi Bay, Auckland 0630
Decided 12 Nov 2025 · Published 12 Nov 2025 · Application 5316285
Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
- The application for rehearing is dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the rehearing application hearing which was held by teleconference.
- On 16 October 2025 the Tribunal made an order declaring that the tenancy was a periodic tenancy, rather than a fixed term tenancy.
- On 16 October 2025 Tatiana Axenova, as trustee of the Ivan Axenov Family Trust, applied for a rehearing on the grounds that she was unable to attend the hearing because she had had a sleepless night with a sick child and had only got to bed at 3am. She said that she was therefore unable to attend the hearing which had been scheduled for 5.30am Japanese time.
- She also put forward her reasons why the tenancy was in fact a fixed term tenancy, rather than a periodic tenancy
- 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 background to this application is that on 11 October 2025 the landlord had applied to the Tribunal requesting a rescheduling of the matter because the current scheduling meant that for her, given that she was living in Japan, the hearing would commence at 5.30am.
- On 15 October 2025 I advised the landlord that the Tribunal was unable to reschedule at such notice and that in any case, s16A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that a landlord who is out of New Zealand for longer than 21 consecutive days must ensure that the landlord has an agent in New Zealand.
- I am not allowing the application for a rehearing. The landlord has failed to establish that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred because: (a) The landlord had an opportunity to appoint an agent to act for them at the hearing and elected not to do so; and (b) At no point during their sleepless night did the landlord advise the Tribunal that they were unable to attend the hearing because of a sick child; and (c) As outlined in paragraph 7 above, the fact that the landlord disagrees with the Tribunal’s findings is not sufficient to establish a miscarriage of justice.
- I note that the tenant’s application for suppression of his name continues because he is wholly successful in his defence to the rehearing application. C ter Haar 12 November 2025