What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5316871 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5316871?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5316871?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5316871?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13023558-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5316871 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5316871?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5316871?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5316871?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13023558-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

133 Cargill Street, Dunedin Central, Dunedin 9016 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5316871 — Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing to decide if there should be a rehearing.
On 12 November 2025 the Tribunal made an order dismissing the tenant’s application, dismissing the landlord’s application for rent arrears and refunding the bond to the landlord as compensation for loss.
On 18 November 2025 the landlord applied for a rehearing. He states that under section 105(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice may have occurred. The grounds for the rehearing include:
The tenants abandoned the tenancy and this was not considered.
Section 105(1) RTA provides that the Tenancy 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 were not able to properly present their case. The new evidence
A rehearing may be granted where there is new evidence that was not reasonably available at the first hearing, if it could have affected the outcome. The landlord submitted that the new evidence is an email from his builder which confirms the building work commenced in August 2025. This is relevant because this would mean the tenants owe more in rent arrears.
The tenants made submissions opposing the rehearing. They said both parties were given an opportunity during the hearing to produce further evidence, and the landlord could not get hold of his builder. They want the matter to be finished.
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.
Applying the law in Jemma Trust, evidence of when the builder started work was available to the landlord before the hearing. I accept the landlord may not have realised this information would be significant, which is why I allowed an opportunity for the landlord to check his emails for a quote or provide supporting evidence about the start date for the building work. He was not able to and, mindful of wasting public resources, I made a decision based on the evidence before me. This is not grounds for a rehearing.
The email from the builder is not fresh evidence because evidence of when the building work commenced was available before the hearing. This means I have to consider if the circumstances are exceptional or the grounds compelling. I find the issue of a moderate amount of rent arrears is not exceptional and the grounds for a rehearing on this point are not compelling. This is not grounds for a rehearing. Commensurate penalties not ordered
The landlord’s submission is essentially that my order for compensation was not sufficient in the circumstances. The landlord thinks I have incorrectly applied the law to the facts. This is something that has to be considered on appeal. This is not grounds for a rehearing. Abandonment was not considered
The tenants did not abandon this tenancy. They advised the landlord on the day that they would not be moving in, and that they wanted the tenancy to end. An abandonment occurs when the tenants leave without informing the landlord. There was a breach of contract and this was considered. I do not find the way Tenancy Services has coded the application to be grounds for a rehearing.
The landlord has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing. The application is dismissed.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing to decide if there should be a rehearing.
On 12 November 2025 the Tribunal made an order dismissing the tenant’s application, dismissing the landlord’s application for rent arrears and refunding the bond to the landlord as compensation for loss.
On 18 November 2025 the landlord applied for a rehearing. He states that under section 105(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice may have occurred. The grounds for the rehearing include:
The tenants abandoned the tenancy and this was not considered.
Section 105(1) RTA provides that the Tenancy 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 were not able to properly present their case. The new evidence
A rehearing may be granted where there is new evidence that was not reasonably available at the first hearing, if it could have affected the outcome. The landlord submitted that the new evidence is an email from his builder which confirms the building work commenced in August 2025. This is relevant because this would mean the tenants owe more in rent arrears.
The tenants made submissions opposing the rehearing. They said both parties were given an opportunity during the hearing to produce further evidence, and the landlord could not get hold of his builder. They want the matter to be finished.
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.
Applying the law in Jemma Trust, evidence of when the builder started work was available to the landlord before the hearing. I accept the landlord may not have realised this information would be significant, which is why I allowed an opportunity for the landlord to check his emails for a quote or provide supporting evidence about the start date for the building work. He was not able to and, mindful of wasting public resources, I made a decision based on the evidence before me. This is not grounds for a rehearing.
The email from the builder is not fresh evidence because evidence of when the building work commenced was available before the hearing. This means I have to consider if the circumstances are exceptional or the grounds compelling. I find the issue of a moderate amount of rent arrears is not exceptional and the grounds for a rehearing on this point are not compelling. This is not grounds for a rehearing. Commensurate penalties not ordered
The landlord’s submission is essentially that my order for compensation was not sufficient in the circumstances. The landlord thinks I have incorrectly applied the law to the facts. This is something that has to be considered on appeal. This is not grounds for a rehearing. Abandonment was not considered
The tenants did not abandon this tenancy. They advised the landlord on the day that they would not be moving in, and that they wanted the tenancy to end. An abandonment occurs when the tenants leave without informing the landlord. There was a breach of contract and this was considered. I do not find the way Tenancy Services has coded the application to be grounds for a rehearing.
The landlord has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing. The application is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5316871 — Rent arrears at 133 Cargill Street, Dunedin Central, Dunedin 9016

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5316871 — Rent arrears at 133 Cargill Street, Dunedin Central, Dunedin 9016

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