What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5327682 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5327682?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5327682?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5327682?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12740637-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5327682 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5327682?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5327682?

The primary dispute was Harassment.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5327682?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12740637-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

8 Jackson Street, Kaiti, Gisborne 4010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5327682 — Harassment

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the teleconference hearing to consider the landlord’s rehearing application.
Whilst the landlord said she believed the hearing on 19 November 2025 would be a new substantive hearing, the Notices of Hearing dated 14 October 2025 scheduling the hearing on 19 November 2025 clearly set out that the hearing was for a rehearing consideration to consider the rehearing request.
On 6 October 2025 the Tribunal made an order for the tenant to pay the landlord $53.50 for new keys and the filing fee from the bond. The balance of the bond was ordered to be refunded to the tenant, and the landlord’s remaining claims were dismissed.
On 9 October 2025, [The tenant/s] landlord/s], the landlord, applied for a rehearing on the following grounds: a. That she had received an email from the tenant’s email address on 3 October 2025, the day after the hearing, and a message from the tenant’s daughter’s boyfriend on 3 October 2025 saying that something had occurred. She said the messages from the tenant’s daughter’s boyfriend were threatening and she said he admitted damaging the walls at the property. b. The landlord said the tenant acknowledged responsibility for the damage by signing the bond refund form to the landlord before the hearing. c. The landlord said she can now provide all the receipts that were not presented at the original hearing to prove the costs she incurred. d. The landlord attached a police report about threats she received from the tenant’s family. e. The landlord said she has witnesses to bring to any new hearing about the state of the property before and after the tenancy.
The landlord provided a significant amount of new documents and video evidence with her rehearing application, along with copies of the email dated 3 October 2025 from the tenant’s email and copy of the messages she received from the tenant’s daughter’s boyfriend.
During the rehearing consideration hearing, the landlord said she did not have much notice of the hearing and then said she had not been to the Tribunal before and was not aware she had to provide her evidence at the hearing. Law
Section 105(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 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”.
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.”
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.
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.
Also as noted by Judge Christiansen in the District Court appeal of Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC 1993: “Rehearings are about challenges to processes and procedures and are not about what the adjudicator found or the decisions the adjudicator made.”

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons [The tenant/s] landlord/s] has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing: a. The Notice of Hearing for the original hearing was dated 22 August 2025 and was sent out to the parties on 22 August 2025 for a hearing on 2 October 2025. Thus, the landlord had significant time to prepare for the hearing. b. It is up to parties to obtain appropriate advice about the claims and to prepare themselves for any hearing, well in advance of the hearing. c. The police report provided by the landlord was not new and was provided for the original hearing. d. The landlord raised the issue of the tenant having signed the bond refund form at the original hearing. She was asked then whether she still wished to proceed to have the Tribunal determine her claims, or whether she wished to rely instead on only the bond refund form signed by the tenant. The landlord chose to proceed with the hearing and have the Tribunal determine her claims. The issue of the tenant having signed the bond refund form to the landlord is not new and was raised in the original hearing. The issue of whether a tenant has signed a bond refund form to a landlord is separate from whether the landlord has proved their specific claims in a Tribunal application. e. All the additional evidence provided by the landlord with her rehearing application, which included bank statements, video evidence, correspondence and receipts/invoices, pre-dated the original hearing and could have been provided by the landlord for the original hearing, apart from the email from the tenant’s email on 3 October 2025 and the messages the landlord said she received from the tenant’s daughter’s boyfriend on 3 October 2025, which are dealt with below. f. The email dated 3 October 2025 from the tenant’s email says the person who wrote it is no longer in town and left “the night your house got smashed up” but does not admit any liability for any damage. g. The messages from the tenant’s daughter’s boyfriend that the landlord said were received on 3 October 2025 refers to “the shit I stuffed in those walls” and makes other threats that are more appropriately dealt with by the police. However, the Tribunal order dated 6 October 2025 found that the walls were damaged intentionally in any event, but dismissed that claim because the landlord did not provide sufficient evidence to prove the amount she claimed to repair this damage. h. As such, neither the email from the tenant’s email dated 3 October 2025 nor the messages from the tenant’s daughter’s boyfriend, would change the outcome of the Tribunal order dated 6 October 2025, as they do not raise any relevant new issue that was not already dealt with in the order about the claims.
As the additional evidence provided by the landlord along with her rehearing application was either evidence that she could have provided for the original hearing and yet did not, or was evidence that would not have changed the outcome of the Tribunal’s order dated 6 October 2025, I find the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to prove a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice likely occurred.
Therefore, I dismiss the rehearing application.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the teleconference hearing to consider the landlord’s rehearing application.
Whilst the landlord said she believed the hearing on 19 November 2025 would be a new substantive hearing, the Notices of Hearing dated 14 October 2025 scheduling the hearing on 19 November 2025 clearly set out that the hearing was for a rehearing consideration to consider the rehearing request.
On 6 October 2025 the Tribunal made an order for the tenant to pay the landlord $53.50 for new keys and the filing fee from the bond. The balance of the bond was ordered to be refunded to the tenant, and the landlord’s remaining claims were dismissed.
On 9 October 2025, [The tenant/s] landlord/s], the landlord, applied for a rehearing on the following grounds: a. That she had received an email from the tenant’s email address on 3 October 2025, the day after the hearing, and a message from the tenant’s daughter’s boyfriend on 3 October 2025 saying that something had occurred. She said the messages from the tenant’s daughter’s boyfriend were threatening and she said he admitted damaging the walls at the property. b. The landlord said the tenant acknowledged responsibility for the damage by signing the bond refund form to the landlord before the hearing. c. The landlord said she can now provide all the receipts that were not presented at the original hearing to prove the costs she incurred. d. The landlord attached a police report about threats she received from the tenant’s family. e. The landlord said she has witnesses to bring to any new hearing about the state of the property before and after the tenancy.
The landlord provided a significant amount of new documents and video evidence with her rehearing application, along with copies of the email dated 3 October 2025 from the tenant’s email and copy of the messages she received from the tenant’s daughter’s boyfriend.
During the rehearing consideration hearing, the landlord said she did not have much notice of the hearing and then said she had not been to the Tribunal before and was not aware she had to provide her evidence at the hearing. Law
Section 105(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 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”.
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.”
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.
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.
Also as noted by Judge Christiansen in the District Court appeal of Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC 1993: “Rehearings are about challenges to processes and procedures and are not about what the adjudicator found or the decisions the adjudicator made.”

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons [The tenant/s] landlord/s] has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing: a. The Notice of Hearing for the original hearing was dated 22 August 2025 and was sent out to the parties on 22 August 2025 for a hearing on 2 October 2025. Thus, the landlord had significant time to prepare for the hearing. b. It is up to parties to obtain appropriate advice about the claims and to prepare themselves for any hearing, well in advance of the hearing. c. The police report provided by the landlord was not new and was provided for the original hearing. d. The landlord raised the issue of the tenant having signed the bond refund form at the original hearing. She was asked then whether she still wished to proceed to have the Tribunal determine her claims, or whether she wished to rely instead on only the bond refund form signed by the tenant. The landlord chose to proceed with the hearing and have the Tribunal determine her claims. The issue of the tenant having signed the bond refund form to the landlord is not new and was raised in the original hearing. The issue of whether a tenant has signed a bond refund form to a landlord is separate from whether the landlord has proved their specific claims in a Tribunal application. e. All the additional evidence provided by the landlord with her rehearing application, which included bank statements, video evidence, correspondence and receipts/invoices, pre-dated the original hearing and could have been provided by the landlord for the original hearing, apart from the email from the tenant’s email on 3 October 2025 and the messages the landlord said she received from the tenant’s daughter’s boyfriend on 3 October 2025, which are dealt with below. f. The email dated 3 October 2025 from the tenant’s email says the person who wrote it is no longer in town and left “the night your house got smashed up” but does not admit any liability for any damage. g. The messages from the tenant’s daughter’s boyfriend that the landlord said were received on 3 October 2025 refers to “the shit I stuffed in those walls” and makes other threats that are more appropriately dealt with by the police. However, the Tribunal order dated 6 October 2025 found that the walls were damaged intentionally in any event, but dismissed that claim because the landlord did not provide sufficient evidence to prove the amount she claimed to repair this damage. h. As such, neither the email from the tenant’s email dated 3 October 2025 nor the messages from the tenant’s daughter’s boyfriend, would change the outcome of the Tribunal order dated 6 October 2025, as they do not raise any relevant new issue that was not already dealt with in the order about the claims.
As the additional evidence provided by the landlord along with her rehearing application was either evidence that she could have provided for the original hearing and yet did not, or was evidence that would not have changed the outcome of the Tribunal’s order dated 6 October 2025, I find the landlord has provided insufficient evidence to prove a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice likely occurred.
Therefore, I dismiss the rehearing application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5327682 — Harassment at 8 Jackson Street, Kaiti, Gisborne 4010

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5327682 — Harassment at 8 Jackson Street, Kaiti, Gisborne 4010

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

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.