What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5328146 about?

The tribunal order states: The application for rehearing is dismissed and the stay of proceedings is lifted.

How much money was awarded in case 5328146?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5328146?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5328146?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12762668-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5328146 about?

The tribunal order states: The application for rehearing is dismissed and the stay of proceedings is lifted.

How much money was awarded in case 5328146?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5328146?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5328146?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12762668-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

44 Chambers Street, Havelock North, Havelock North 4130 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5328146 — Rent arrears

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed and the stay of proceedings is lifted.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
On 19 September 2025 the Tribunal made an order for rent arrears, exemplary damages and refund of the filing fee.
On 22 September 2025, [The tenant/s] tenant/s] via her advocate Mr Thorne applied for a rehearing on the grounds that. a) There was an error of fact. b) Important evidence was not presented at the hearing. c) The bond was released after a stay was granted.
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.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons [The tenant/s] tenant/s] has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing. a) An error of fact. Mr Thorne said that the email provided of 7 September had an attached letter that was not referred to or gone over. This letter he said was where the landlord was made aware that the tenant had not abandoned the premises. The landlord said that by then the tenant had already left the premises and it was not clear what had happened with the tenancy. The tenant had appointed the advocate in June and there was time to let the landlords know what the tenant was doing. It is the applicant’s responsibility to present the case and raise the present the evidence. At the end of the hearing the parties were asked if either of them had any further evidence or information, and this was not raised. b) Important evidence was not presented at the hearing. The tenant said that there was an important medical certificate that was not presented at the hearing. The tenant had the certificate but had not submitted it. The certificate was part of a separate application involving the landlord and the Mr Throne said that this was the reason why it was not provided to the Tribunal as part of the evidence for this hearing. The landlord said that they have seen the medical certificate and could not see why it could not have been submitted at the first hearing, commenting that it did not explain why the tenant abandoned the premises. The medical evidence was available, but not provided to the Tribunal. A rehearing will not be granted to give a party a second opportunity to present their evidence and their case. c) The bond was released after a stay was granted. A technical error occurred resulting in the bond being released after a stay of proceedings had been granted by the Tribunal. Once the Tribunal has made an order, the mechanics and process of releasing of the bond money is not the Tenancy Tribunals responsibility. The error occurred after the stay was granted by the Tribunal. Errors relating to the bond release by the bond centre are not errors of the Tenancy Tribunal procedure and so are not grounds on which a rehearing can be granted.
I find that the tenant has not established grounds for a rehearing and the application for rehearing is dismissed.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed and the stay of proceedings is lifted.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
On 19 September 2025 the Tribunal made an order for rent arrears, exemplary damages and refund of the filing fee.
On 22 September 2025, [The tenant/s] tenant/s] via her advocate Mr Thorne applied for a rehearing on the grounds that. a) There was an error of fact. b) Important evidence was not presented at the hearing. c) The bond was released after a stay was granted.
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.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons [The tenant/s] tenant/s] has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing. a) An error of fact. Mr Thorne said that the email provided of 7 September had an attached letter that was not referred to or gone over. This letter he said was where the landlord was made aware that the tenant had not abandoned the premises. The landlord said that by then the tenant had already left the premises and it was not clear what had happened with the tenancy. The tenant had appointed the advocate in June and there was time to let the landlords know what the tenant was doing. It is the applicant’s responsibility to present the case and raise the present the evidence. At the end of the hearing the parties were asked if either of them had any further evidence or information, and this was not raised. b) Important evidence was not presented at the hearing. The tenant said that there was an important medical certificate that was not presented at the hearing. The tenant had the certificate but had not submitted it. The certificate was part of a separate application involving the landlord and the Mr Throne said that this was the reason why it was not provided to the Tribunal as part of the evidence for this hearing. The landlord said that they have seen the medical certificate and could not see why it could not have been submitted at the first hearing, commenting that it did not explain why the tenant abandoned the premises. The medical evidence was available, but not provided to the Tribunal. A rehearing will not be granted to give a party a second opportunity to present their evidence and their case. c) The bond was released after a stay was granted. A technical error occurred resulting in the bond being released after a stay of proceedings had been granted by the Tribunal. Once the Tribunal has made an order, the mechanics and process of releasing of the bond money is not the Tenancy Tribunals responsibility. The error occurred after the stay was granted by the Tribunal. Errors relating to the bond release by the bond centre are not errors of the Tenancy Tribunal procedure and so are not grounds on which a rehearing can be granted.
I find that the tenant has not established grounds for a rehearing and the application for rehearing is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5328146 — Rent arrears at 44 Chambers Street, Havelock North, Havelock North 4130

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5328146 — Rent arrears at 44 Chambers Street, Havelock North, Havelock North 4130

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.

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.