What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5317500 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5317500?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5317500?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12761905-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5317500 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5317500?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5317500?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12761905-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

13 Adair Place, Weymouth, Auckland 2103 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5317500 — Leaks

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application for rehearing filed by the landlord. The Tribunal directed that this application for rehearing be considered on the papers, and this decision explains why the rehearing is not approved.

BACKGROUND

On 15 September 2025, the Tribunal issued a decision following an application from the landlord against the tenants. As recorded in the decision, the landlord claimed water charges of $2,672.15. However, the tenant’s position was that they did not use that volume of water, and claimed there was a water leak. As set out in the decision, I accepted that it was likely to be the case that there was a water leak given the sharp increase in water use at the premises. Ultimately, I ordered the tenants to pay $718.20, based on average water consumption at the premises.
The landlord then applied for a rehearing stating in the rehearing application: I am writing to request a reconsideration regarding the recent claim received for water arrears which is stated as $712.20. However, the actual outstanding water arrears amount of $2,672.15. To provide context: A mediation order was issued in March confirming our arrears amount of $1,322.41. Unfortunately, the tenant has not made any payment towards that agreed amount too date. Since then the water arrears have further increased to. $2672.15. There are no leaks in the property as well being claimed by the tenants.
I directed that the application for rehearing be considered on the papers, and set a timetable for written submissions to be provided.
Only the landlord provided any response, again noting similar matters to those set out in the application for re-hearing form, again referring to the earlier order, the fact that there was no leak, and that no earlier payments towards the arrears have been made.

RELEVANT LAW

Section 105 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 relates to rehearings. Subsection 1 confirms that: 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. [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 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.

ANALYSIS

I have set out the relevant law that applies to rehearings above. In short, re- hearings are a safety measure should something have gone wrong with the hearing, normally on a procedural basis, in which case a rehearing can be approved so that the matter then returns to the Tribunal for a further hearing.
I have considered the submissions from the Applicant, and find that no procedural issues have been identified, and I cannot see any potential for a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice to justify a rehearing, for these reasons.
Firstly, I am not persuaded that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred in this case. In the decision, I explained why I was not prepared to order the amount claimed, because I considered it likely that there was a water leak, which the tenants advised the property manager about. If the landlord disagreed with that finding, then it needed to be appealed to the District Court.
Secondly, while it may well be that the tenants have not paid the amount originally ordered by the Tribunal in the order from 11 March 2025, the landlord’s remedy is to enforce that order. Indeed, if the tenants have not paid the order from 15 September 2025, again the landlord’s remedy is to enforce that order as well. If there has been nonpayment, that does not show an error in the most recent Tribunal order.
In short, there are no grounds upon which a rehearing can be approved. The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application for rehearing filed by the landlord. The Tribunal directed that this application for rehearing be considered on the papers, and this decision explains why the rehearing is not approved.

BACKGROUND

On 15 September 2025, the Tribunal issued a decision following an application from the landlord against the tenants. As recorded in the decision, the landlord claimed water charges of $2,672.15. However, the tenant’s position was that they did not use that volume of water, and claimed there was a water leak. As set out in the decision, I accepted that it was likely to be the case that there was a water leak given the sharp increase in water use at the premises. Ultimately, I ordered the tenants to pay $718.20, based on average water consumption at the premises.
The landlord then applied for a rehearing stating in the rehearing application: I am writing to request a reconsideration regarding the recent claim received for water arrears which is stated as $712.20. However, the actual outstanding water arrears amount of $2,672.15. To provide context: A mediation order was issued in March confirming our arrears amount of $1,322.41. Unfortunately, the tenant has not made any payment towards that agreed amount too date. Since then the water arrears have further increased to. $2672.15. There are no leaks in the property as well being claimed by the tenants.
I directed that the application for rehearing be considered on the papers, and set a timetable for written submissions to be provided.
Only the landlord provided any response, again noting similar matters to those set out in the application for re-hearing form, again referring to the earlier order, the fact that there was no leak, and that no earlier payments towards the arrears have been made.

RELEVANT LAW

Section 105 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 relates to rehearings. Subsection 1 confirms that: 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. [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 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.

ANALYSIS

I have set out the relevant law that applies to rehearings above. In short, re- hearings are a safety measure should something have gone wrong with the hearing, normally on a procedural basis, in which case a rehearing can be approved so that the matter then returns to the Tribunal for a further hearing.
I have considered the submissions from the Applicant, and find that no procedural issues have been identified, and I cannot see any potential for a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice to justify a rehearing, for these reasons.
Firstly, I am not persuaded that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred in this case. In the decision, I explained why I was not prepared to order the amount claimed, because I considered it likely that there was a water leak, which the tenants advised the property manager about. If the landlord disagreed with that finding, then it needed to be appealed to the District Court.
Secondly, while it may well be that the tenants have not paid the amount originally ordered by the Tribunal in the order from 11 March 2025, the landlord’s remedy is to enforce that order. Indeed, if the tenants have not paid the order from 15 September 2025, again the landlord’s remedy is to enforce that order as well. If there has been nonpayment, that does not show an error in the most recent Tribunal order.
In short, there are no grounds upon which a rehearing can be approved. The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5317500 — Leaks at 13 Adair Place, Weymouth, Auckland 2103

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5317500 — Leaks at 13 Adair Place, Weymouth, Auckland 2103

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LAW

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LAW

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions