What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5328944 about?

The tribunal order states: The application for rehearing filed by [The tenant/s] is declined.

How much money was awarded in case 5328944?

AT Martin: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5328944?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5328944?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12789859-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5328944 about?

The tribunal order states: The application for rehearing filed by [The tenant/s] is declined.

How much money was awarded in case 5328944?

AT Martin: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5328944?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5328944?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12789859-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

26 Western Road, Ngongotaha, Rotorua 3010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5328944 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5328944. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
AT Martin	$28.00		AT Martin

Order

The application for rehearing filed by [The tenant/s] is declined.
The possession order dated 2 October 2025 is confirmed, with clarification below.
Possession is granted to Robert William Martin and [The landlord/s], the registered proprietors of the premises, acting through their authorised agent Everard Developments Limited.
The stay of proceedings granted on 13 November 2025 is lifted.
[The tenant/s] is to pay Everard Developments Limited as agent for RW and AT Martin $28.00; the application filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The registered proprietors of the premises are Robert William Martin and [The landlord/s]. They have authorised Everard Developments Limited (EDL), directed by their son, to act on their behalf in all matters relating to the occupation and recovery of possession.
Under s 2 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA), the term “landlord” includes not only the grantor of the right of occupation but, where appropriate, a lawful successor in title and an agent of a landlord. I am satisfied on the evidence, including the attendance of Mrs Martin and confirmation of authority, that EDL was acting as the Martins’ agent.
Accordingly, for the purposes of these proceedings, EDL falls within the statutory definition of “landlord” and was entitled to bring the possession application on behalf of the registered owners.

Should a rehearing be granted?

The Landlord obtained a possession order on 2 October 2025 under s 65 RTA.
On 8 October 2025, Mr Hewitt applied for a rehearing. His primary ground is that Everard Developments Limited (EDL) is not the registered owner and therefore lacked standing to apply for possession.
The tenancy ended many years ago, and occupation continued solely under a cancelled agreement for sale and purchase.
Section 105(1) RTA permits a rehearing only where “a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred”.
A rehearing is generally appropriate only where: a. a party did not receive notice of the hearing, b. procedural fairness was denied, or c. significant new evidence, not reasonably available earlier, could have changed the outcome.
A rehearing is not an alternative to an appeal. It is not available merely because a party disagrees with the decision or wishes to re-argue the same points.
An error of fact or law, if alleged, is a matter for appeal to the District Court.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons, Mr Hewitt has failed to establish grounds for a rehearing. Standing of the Applicant
Mr Hewitt relies on a title search showing that RW and AT Martin – not EDL – are the registered proprietors.
AT Martin attended the original hearing by phone and rehearing-consideration hearing in person.
AT Martin expressly confirmed that: a. she and Mr RW Martin wish to recover possession of their property; b. their son, Alec Martin, director of EDL, is their authorised agent; and c. EDL was acting on their behalf in filing and conducting the possession application.
The Tribunal accepts that authority. The RTA recognises that applications may be made by authorised agents, and nothing in s 65 requires the named applicant to be the registered owner if acting for the owner.
If the original order should have been expressed in the owners’ own names, this is a technical defect only, and it does not amount to a miscarriage of justice and is cured by clarifying the order. Settlement notice and cancellation
Mr Hewitt says no settlement notice was served, and no cancellation occurred.
That is inconsistent with: a. the written settlement notice produced at both hearings, b. solicitor correspondence calling for settlement, and c. written notice of cancellation.
The Tribunal remains satisfied the 2010 agreement was cancelled after the Tenant’s default.
The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine, for the limited purpose of applying s 65 RTA, whether the Respondent’s contractual right to occupy under the 2010 agreement for sale and purchase has come to an end.
This does not involve determining equitable ownership or the validity of any caveat, which are matters for the High Court.
Section 5(1)(o) excludes the Act only while the purchaser continues to hold a contractual right of occupation under an agreement for sale and purchase; i.e.. once the agreement was cancelled following non-compliance with a valid settlement notice, the Respondent was no longer a “purchaser” within the meaning of that provision.
Consequently, s 5(1)(o) no longer applied, and the Tribunal had jurisdiction to make a possession order under s 65. Substantial merits and justice – s 85 RTA
Mr Hewitt has lived at the property since 2010 without paying rent and without progressing settlement.
The registered owners, now elderly, continue to incur rates and outgoings.
Mr Hewitt has made no credible proposal to settle, no payment, and no steps to regularise his occupation.
To allow a rehearing on purely technical grounds would undermine the purpose of s 65 and would not serve the substantial merits and justice of the case. Conclusion
No substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has been established.
The rehearing application is declined, and the possession order is confirmed with a party clarification intended to give the Tribunal Order full legal effect.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5328944. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
AT Martin	$28.00		AT Martin

Order

The application for rehearing filed by [The tenant/s] is declined.
The possession order dated 2 October 2025 is confirmed, with clarification below.
Possession is granted to Robert William Martin and [The landlord/s], the registered proprietors of the premises, acting through their authorised agent Everard Developments Limited.
The stay of proceedings granted on 13 November 2025 is lifted.
[The tenant/s] is to pay Everard Developments Limited as agent for RW and AT Martin $28.00; the application filing fee.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The registered proprietors of the premises are Robert William Martin and [The landlord/s]. They have authorised Everard Developments Limited (EDL), directed by their son, to act on their behalf in all matters relating to the occupation and recovery of possession.
Under s 2 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA), the term “landlord” includes not only the grantor of the right of occupation but, where appropriate, a lawful successor in title and an agent of a landlord. I am satisfied on the evidence, including the attendance of Mrs Martin and confirmation of authority, that EDL was acting as the Martins’ agent.
Accordingly, for the purposes of these proceedings, EDL falls within the statutory definition of “landlord” and was entitled to bring the possession application on behalf of the registered owners.

Should a rehearing be granted?

The Landlord obtained a possession order on 2 October 2025 under s 65 RTA.
On 8 October 2025, Mr Hewitt applied for a rehearing. His primary ground is that Everard Developments Limited (EDL) is not the registered owner and therefore lacked standing to apply for possession.
The tenancy ended many years ago, and occupation continued solely under a cancelled agreement for sale and purchase.
Section 105(1) RTA permits a rehearing only where “a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred”.
A rehearing is generally appropriate only where: a. a party did not receive notice of the hearing, b. procedural fairness was denied, or c. significant new evidence, not reasonably available earlier, could have changed the outcome.
A rehearing is not an alternative to an appeal. It is not available merely because a party disagrees with the decision or wishes to re-argue the same points.
An error of fact or law, if alleged, is a matter for appeal to the District Court.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons, Mr Hewitt has failed to establish grounds for a rehearing. Standing of the Applicant
Mr Hewitt relies on a title search showing that RW and AT Martin – not EDL – are the registered proprietors.
AT Martin attended the original hearing by phone and rehearing-consideration hearing in person.
AT Martin expressly confirmed that: a. she and Mr RW Martin wish to recover possession of their property; b. their son, Alec Martin, director of EDL, is their authorised agent; and c. EDL was acting on their behalf in filing and conducting the possession application.
The Tribunal accepts that authority. The RTA recognises that applications may be made by authorised agents, and nothing in s 65 requires the named applicant to be the registered owner if acting for the owner.
If the original order should have been expressed in the owners’ own names, this is a technical defect only, and it does not amount to a miscarriage of justice and is cured by clarifying the order. Settlement notice and cancellation
Mr Hewitt says no settlement notice was served, and no cancellation occurred.
That is inconsistent with: a. the written settlement notice produced at both hearings, b. solicitor correspondence calling for settlement, and c. written notice of cancellation.
The Tribunal remains satisfied the 2010 agreement was cancelled after the Tenant’s default.
The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine, for the limited purpose of applying s 65 RTA, whether the Respondent’s contractual right to occupy under the 2010 agreement for sale and purchase has come to an end.
This does not involve determining equitable ownership or the validity of any caveat, which are matters for the High Court.
Section 5(1)(o) excludes the Act only while the purchaser continues to hold a contractual right of occupation under an agreement for sale and purchase; i.e.. once the agreement was cancelled following non-compliance with a valid settlement notice, the Respondent was no longer a “purchaser” within the meaning of that provision.
Consequently, s 5(1)(o) no longer applied, and the Tribunal had jurisdiction to make a possession order under s 65. Substantial merits and justice – s 85 RTA
Mr Hewitt has lived at the property since 2010 without paying rent and without progressing settlement.
The registered owners, now elderly, continue to incur rates and outgoings.
Mr Hewitt has made no credible proposal to settle, no payment, and no steps to regularise his occupation.
To allow a rehearing on purely technical grounds would undermine the purpose of s 65 and would not serve the substantial merits and justice of the case. Conclusion
No substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has been established.
The rehearing application is declined, and the possession order is confirmed with a party clarification intended to give the Tribunal Order full legal effect.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5328944 — Tenancy dispute at 26 Western Road, Ngongotaha, Rotorua 3010

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5328944 — Tenancy dispute at 26 Western Road, Ngongotaha, Rotorua 3010

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should a rehearing be granted?

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Should a rehearing be granted?

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions