What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5318363 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 5318363?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5318363?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5318363?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13251826-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5318363 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 5318363?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5318363?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5318363?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13251826-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5318363 — Rent arrears

Order

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

Reasons

Both parties attended a rehearing hearing.
On 3 February 2026 the Tribunal made orders for rent arrears and compensation.
The tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that a miscarriage of justice had occurred, in that she had not been properly able to present her case and that she wished to challenge the landlord’s claims.
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. 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.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons the tenant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
The first thing I must consider, is whether an adjournment should have been granted on 3 February 2026.
The tenant says that she was unwell and not able to attend the first hearing. She has not provided any evidence of incapacity or inability to attend the first hearing. The background is set out at paragraphs 2 to 6 of the 3 February decision.
Having regard to previous late adjournment requests by the tenant, the lack of any supporting evidence of incapacity and the tenant’s failure to answer calls from the Tribunal during the scheduled hearing time, I am not persuaded that an adjournment should have been granted.
Even if an adjournment had been granted, I am not persuaded that the evidence the tenant now relies on could or would have affected the outcome. All of the evidence referred to me today was available at the first hearing.
The tenant now disputes the rent arrears claim and says that she should have been released from the tenancy when she moved out in March 2025. The tenancy in fact ended on 2 May 2025, two days after the landlord received the information required by s56B RTA. The tenant was the sole tenant, so the entire tenancy ended 2 days after the notice and qualifying evidence was provided to the landlord.
The tenant says that the landlord was aware she had moved and that she had no control over the timing of the documentation required to end the tenancy, so she should not be liable for the rent claimed. It would be imprudent and improper for a landlord to treat a tenancy as terminated unless and until it receives the documentation required under s56B. I found that the tenant is liable for rent to 2 May 2025. Even relying on the documentation that tenant now refers to, I would reach the same conclusion.
The tenant disputed the other claims in correspondence to the Tribunal on 2 February 2026. That evidence was taken into account in the previous award. If my findings were wrong, that is a matter for appeal, not rehearing.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.
As this application relates to a withdrawal form a tenancy under s56B, the Tribunal orders that the name and identifying particulars of the parties not be published.

Order

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

Reasons

Both parties attended a rehearing hearing.
On 3 February 2026 the Tribunal made orders for rent arrears and compensation.
The tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that a miscarriage of justice had occurred, in that she had not been properly able to present her case and that she wished to challenge the landlord’s claims.
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. 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.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons the tenant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
The first thing I must consider, is whether an adjournment should have been granted on 3 February 2026.
The tenant says that she was unwell and not able to attend the first hearing. She has not provided any evidence of incapacity or inability to attend the first hearing. The background is set out at paragraphs 2 to 6 of the 3 February decision.
Having regard to previous late adjournment requests by the tenant, the lack of any supporting evidence of incapacity and the tenant’s failure to answer calls from the Tribunal during the scheduled hearing time, I am not persuaded that an adjournment should have been granted.
Even if an adjournment had been granted, I am not persuaded that the evidence the tenant now relies on could or would have affected the outcome. All of the evidence referred to me today was available at the first hearing.
The tenant now disputes the rent arrears claim and says that she should have been released from the tenancy when she moved out in March 2025. The tenancy in fact ended on 2 May 2025, two days after the landlord received the information required by s56B RTA. The tenant was the sole tenant, so the entire tenancy ended 2 days after the notice and qualifying evidence was provided to the landlord.
The tenant says that the landlord was aware she had moved and that she had no control over the timing of the documentation required to end the tenancy, so she should not be liable for the rent claimed. It would be imprudent and improper for a landlord to treat a tenancy as terminated unless and until it receives the documentation required under s56B. I found that the tenant is liable for rent to 2 May 2025. Even relying on the documentation that tenant now refers to, I would reach the same conclusion.
The tenant disputed the other claims in correspondence to the Tribunal on 2 February 2026. That evidence was taken into account in the previous award. If my findings were wrong, that is a matter for appeal, not rehearing.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.
As this application relates to a withdrawal form a tenancy under s56B, the Tribunal orders that the name and identifying particulars of the parties not be published.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5318363 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5318363 — Rent arrears

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

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions