What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5326539 about?

The tribunal order states: dated 30 October 2025, the Tribunal (the same adjudicator who heard

How much money was awarded in case 5326539?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5326539?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5326539?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12671411-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5326539 about?

The tribunal order states: dated 30 October 2025, the Tribunal (the same adjudicator who heard

How much money was awarded in case 5326539?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5326539?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5326539?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12671411-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

32B Dart Place, Fernhill, Queenstown 9300 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5326539 — Rent arrears

Order

dated 30 October 2025, the Tribunal (the same adjudicator who heard the claim on 28 October 2025) dismissed the application for a rehearing on the grounds that the Tenant had the opportunity to present that evidence at the initial hearing, but did not do so. The adjudicator also noted that a rehearing will not be granted to give a party a second chance to present the case they could have presented the first time around. This second rehearing application

On 31 October 2025, the Tenant filed another rehearing application. She says that she had sought advice from a lawyer, who advised her that there were flaws with her first rehearing application, so this second application was filed. The grounds for the rehearing application were the same as dealt with by the Tribunal on 30 October.
I heard the Tenant’s rehearing application on 6 November 2025. Although she advanced several points, her main submission is that she denies owing rent and did not understand that she needed to produce evidence in support of that position at the earlier Tribunal hearing.
At the centre of the Tenant’s position is a conversation with the Landlord on Sunday 3 August 2025. 1 The Tenant says that on 3 August 2025, the Landlord verbally agreed to provide three weeks’ free rent between 29 July 2025 and 18 August 2025 due to ongoing inconvenience caused by a bathroom renovation. Nothing was recorded in writing. The Landlord denies that any such agreement was reached.
The Tenant says that she has evidence in support of her version of events, which had not been provided to the Tribunal when it made the 28 October 2025 orders. The Tenant has now provided a statutory declaration from a third person, who says that he overheard this discussion. The Landlord challenges that evidence and says that it has evidence to show that the third party was in Fiji on 3 August 2025, so he could not have overheard any discussion. The Tenant also says that she has bank statements from her flatmates, which show that they did not pay rent for that time, which is evidence of the free rent agreement with the Landlord.
The Tenant says that she did not present the evidence from the third party or the flatmate’s bank statements at the initial Tribunal hearing because she is inexperienced in legal matters and did not understand that she needed to bring evidence from witnesses. She now wants that opportunity. The law 1 At the earlier hearing, it seems that the Tenant says this conversation occurred on 25 July 2025.
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. My assessment
I am not satisfied that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur either at the hearing of 28 October 2025 or the first rehearing application consideration.
The Tenant knew that the Landlord was seeking to terminate the tenancy for unpaid rent, including unpaid rent for the period that she alleged was rent free well in advance of the hearing. The Landlord’s claim and the relevant evidence, including the rent summary detailing all rent transactions and the amounts allegedly owed by the Tenant, was provided to the Tenant well in advance of the hearing. That rent summary also showed that the Landlord was claiming rent for the period that the Tenant says was rent free.
The Tenant had an adequate opportunity to respond to that claim and to seek advice (as she has now done) if she was unsure as to how to respond. An email dated 24 October 2025 from the Tenant shows that, as early as 4 September 2025, she was working with her partner to respond to the Landlord’s claim. The rent summary was then sent to the Tenant by Tenancy Services on 8 September 2025. By that date, the Tenant was, or should have been, aware that the Landlord was claiming rent between 29 July 2025 and 18 August 2025 and, whether rent was payable during that time was an important issue in this case.
The evidence that she now relies upon in support of this rehearing application was all available to her before the first hearing. The statutory declaration is a new document, but its contents are not new evidence. The statutory declaration is a record of what the witness says they heard in August 2025 and that evidence was available to the Tenant before the hearing on 28 October. There is no evidence to show that the person who made that declaration could not have provided that evidence before 28 October 2025. Likewise, there was no evidence to show that the flatmate’s rent records were not reasonably available before 28 October.
The Tenant says that she is dyslexic and did not understand what she was required to do to respond to the Landlord’s claim. Her actions since the Tribunal’s decision on 28 October suggest that she is well capable of responding appropriately to such a claim. She has consulted with the Citizen’s Advice Bureau and a lawyer and now attempted to present further evidence as a result. She could easily have done that before 28 October but does not appear to have done so.
In finding that the statutory declaration and flatmate payment records does not provide grounds for a rehearing, I note that rehearings are not intended to provide an opportunity for an unsuccessful party to gather and present further evidence that was otherwise available to them at the earlier hearing. The purpose of the earlier hearing was to consider all the relevant available evidence. The efficiency of the Tribunal would be undermined if unsuccessful parties were able to have a second chance to present evidence that was reasonably available but not presented the first time around.
For completeness, I also note that there is nothing in the procedure followed by the adjudicator who considered this matter that would amount to an actual or likely substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice. The adjudicator considered the relevant evidence presented to her and applied the correct legal tests. If the Tenant is unhappy with the outcome, her remedy lies with an appeal, rather than a rehearing application. Outcome
The Tenant’s application for a rehearing is therefore dismissed and the Tribunal’s orders of 28 October 2025 stand. As discussed with the Tenant, during the hearing, nothing in this decision restricts her rights to appeal. B Carter 06 November 2025

Order

On 31 October 2025, the Tenant filed another rehearing application. She says that she had sought advice from a lawyer, who advised her that there were flaws with her first rehearing application, so this second application was filed. The grounds for the rehearing application were the same as dealt with by the Tribunal on 30 October.
I heard the Tenant’s rehearing application on 6 November 2025. Although she advanced several points, her main submission is that she denies owing rent and did not understand that she needed to produce evidence in support of that position at the earlier Tribunal hearing.
At the centre of the Tenant’s position is a conversation with the Landlord on Sunday 3 August 2025. 1 The Tenant says that on 3 August 2025, the Landlord verbally agreed to provide three weeks’ free rent between 29 July 2025 and 18 August 2025 due to ongoing inconvenience caused by a bathroom renovation. Nothing was recorded in writing. The Landlord denies that any such agreement was reached.
The Tenant says that she has evidence in support of her version of events, which had not been provided to the Tribunal when it made the 28 October 2025 orders. The Tenant has now provided a statutory declaration from a third person, who says that he overheard this discussion. The Landlord challenges that evidence and says that it has evidence to show that the third party was in Fiji on 3 August 2025, so he could not have overheard any discussion. The Tenant also says that she has bank statements from her flatmates, which show that they did not pay rent for that time, which is evidence of the free rent agreement with the Landlord.
The Tenant says that she did not present the evidence from the third party or the flatmate’s bank statements at the initial Tribunal hearing because she is inexperienced in legal matters and did not understand that she needed to bring evidence from witnesses. She now wants that opportunity. The law 1 At the earlier hearing, it seems that the Tenant says this conversation occurred on 25 July 2025.
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. My assessment
I am not satisfied that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur either at the hearing of 28 October 2025 or the first rehearing application consideration.
The Tenant knew that the Landlord was seeking to terminate the tenancy for unpaid rent, including unpaid rent for the period that she alleged was rent free well in advance of the hearing. The Landlord’s claim and the relevant evidence, including the rent summary detailing all rent transactions and the amounts allegedly owed by the Tenant, was provided to the Tenant well in advance of the hearing. That rent summary also showed that the Landlord was claiming rent for the period that the Tenant says was rent free.
The Tenant had an adequate opportunity to respond to that claim and to seek advice (as she has now done) if she was unsure as to how to respond. An email dated 24 October 2025 from the Tenant shows that, as early as 4 September 2025, she was working with her partner to respond to the Landlord’s claim. The rent summary was then sent to the Tenant by Tenancy Services on 8 September 2025. By that date, the Tenant was, or should have been, aware that the Landlord was claiming rent between 29 July 2025 and 18 August 2025 and, whether rent was payable during that time was an important issue in this case.
The evidence that she now relies upon in support of this rehearing application was all available to her before the first hearing. The statutory declaration is a new document, but its contents are not new evidence. The statutory declaration is a record of what the witness says they heard in August 2025 and that evidence was available to the Tenant before the hearing on 28 October. There is no evidence to show that the person who made that declaration could not have provided that evidence before 28 October 2025. Likewise, there was no evidence to show that the flatmate’s rent records were not reasonably available before 28 October.
The Tenant says that she is dyslexic and did not understand what she was required to do to respond to the Landlord’s claim. Her actions since the Tribunal’s decision on 28 October suggest that she is well capable of responding appropriately to such a claim. She has consulted with the Citizen’s Advice Bureau and a lawyer and now attempted to present further evidence as a result. She could easily have done that before 28 October but does not appear to have done so.
In finding that the statutory declaration and flatmate payment records does not provide grounds for a rehearing, I note that rehearings are not intended to provide an opportunity for an unsuccessful party to gather and present further evidence that was otherwise available to them at the earlier hearing. The purpose of the earlier hearing was to consider all the relevant available evidence. The efficiency of the Tribunal would be undermined if unsuccessful parties were able to have a second chance to present evidence that was reasonably available but not presented the first time around.
For completeness, I also note that there is nothing in the procedure followed by the adjudicator who considered this matter that would amount to an actual or likely substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice. The adjudicator considered the relevant evidence presented to her and applied the correct legal tests. If the Tenant is unhappy with the outcome, her remedy lies with an appeal, rather than a rehearing application. Outcome
The Tenant’s application for a rehearing is therefore dismissed and the Tribunal’s orders of 28 October 2025 stand. As discussed with the Tenant, during the hearing, nothing in this decision restricts her rights to appeal. B Carter 06 November 2025

Tenancy Tribunal case 5326539 — Rent arrears at 32B Dart Place, Fernhill, Queenstown 9300

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5326539 — Rent arrears at 32B Dart Place, Fernhill, Queenstown 9300

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions