What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5331939 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5331939?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5331939?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5331939?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12815747-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5331939 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5331939?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5331939?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5331939?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12815747-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

21 Duckworth Road, Papakura, Papakura 2110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5331939 — Leaks

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted via video conference.
The tenants attended the hearing.
Ms. Driessen and Mr. Kumar attended the hearing via teleconference on behalf of the landlord.
On 19 December 2025, the Tribunal made an order declaring the 90-day notice to vacate retaliatory and ordered exemplary damages against the landlord.
On 26 September 2025, the landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that: a. The Tribunal made an error of law in finding the termination notice retaliatory; and b. As a result of a misinterpretation of the law under section 54 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”), a substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred, might have occurred, or was likely to occur.
Section 105(1) of the Act 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 landlord has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing. Landlord’s submissions (Ms Driessen)
Ms. Driessen submitted that the Tribunal’s earlier decision dated 19 September 2025 was incorrect and should be reheard. She submitted that: a. The 90-day termination notice was not retaliatory, but issued because the owner intended to sell the property. Therefore, the owner would like to have a vacant house. See section 51(1) of the Act. No reason was necessary. b. The tenants had claimed the 90-day notice to terminate was served 48 hours after the first Tribunal hearing on 18 August 2025, but it was in fact issued approximately 80 hours later, based on the email timestamp (sent on 21 August 2025 at 5:20pm). c. Under the Act, landlords are not required to provide reasons when issuing a 90-day notice, and the Tribunal’s earlier interpretation of the law was, in her view, incorrect. d. The landlord was not willing to pay the exemplary damages and the filing fee (total being $778) ordered under the previous decision, which she considered unjustified. e. She noted that the tenants had since vacated the property but allegedly failed to pay rent and water charges at the end of the tenancy. These matters would, she said, be raised in a separate claim.
Ms. Driessen concluded that there had been no procedural or error by the landlord and that the 90-day termination notice was properly issued in compliance with section 51(1) of the Act. Tenants’ submissions (Ms Hagger)
Ms. Hagger submitted that a. The 90-day notice was received within 48 hours of the previous Tribunal hearing (held on Monday, 18 August 2025), likely on Wednesday, 20 August 2025. b. Even if the difference was a few hours, the notice was issued within the same week, making it appear retaliatory. c. If the landlord truly intended to sell the property, notice could have been provided before the hearing, or evidence of the sale preparations could have been shown. d. Instead, the landlord continued arranging maintenance visits and giving assurances about repairs until shortly before issuing the notice, suggesting the decision was made because she won the August 2025 Tribunal proceedings. e. She also challenged the landlord’s claim that all maintenance issues were resolved, stating that a leaking window remained unfixed when they vacated. Ms. Hagger said she had video evidence from their final inspection day showing the window still leaked.
Ms Hagger maintained that the landlord’s conduct demonstrated that the termination notice was issued in retaliation for her winning the August 2025 Tribunal proceedings and asserting her legal rights against the landlord. Analysis
Ms. Driessen is correct that her client is not required to give a reason when issuing a 90-day termination notice under section 51(1) of the Act.
Equally, section 54 of the Act does not prevent a tenant from filing an application with the Tribunal for an order declaring that the notice was retaliatory.
In other words, whether a termination notice is retaliatory is a question of fact.
In paragraphs 21 to 26 of the original decision dated 19 September 2025, I stated: “Analysis
I do not accept Ms Tuatagaloa and Ms Driessen’s submissions that the termination notice was unrelated to the Tribunal proceedings or complaints Ms Hagger made against the landlord.
The explanation was that the landlord had already intended to issue a 90-day termination notice before the Tribunal hearing on 18 August 2025, but Ms Tuatagaloa and Ms Driessen advised the landlord to delay it until after the Tribunal hearing's outcome. However, no documentary evidence was provided to support this claim. There are no written instructions, or emails before the Tribunal hearing showing that the landlord had already decided to end the tenancy.
In contrast, the timing of the notice is clear and undisputed. The Tribunal issued its order on 18 August 2025. The termination notice was served on 21 August 2025. The proximity of these two events strongly supports Ms Hagger’s case that the notice was motivated, at least partly, by her having exercised her legal rights and succeeded in the Tribunal.
Although I have not placed much weight on the fact that the landlord has not yet fully complied with the earlier Tribunal order, the landlord has not persuaded me that his failure to comply has, at least in part, motivated him to instruct the property manager to issue a termination notice.
I also note that Ms Driessen said in evidence that the landlord instructed her to issue the notice “on the day of the court hearing.” That admission itself suggests a direct connection between the Tribunal proceedings and the termination notice. The submission that the landlord would have issued notice regardless of the outcome is speculative and unsupported by evidence.
Accordingly, I have concluded that the 90-day termination notice is retaliatory. I also find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.”
If, as Ms Driessen submitted, I was wrong in my interpretation of the law, the appropriate course of action to take is to appeal the original decision.
Further, the landlord is not happy with the original decision ordering exemplary damages against him. This is evident when Ms Driessen said that her client was not willing to pay the exemplary damages as ordered.
Accordingly, I am not satisfied that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted via video conference.
The tenants attended the hearing.
Ms. Driessen and Mr. Kumar attended the hearing via teleconference on behalf of the landlord.
On 19 December 2025, the Tribunal made an order declaring the 90-day notice to vacate retaliatory and ordered exemplary damages against the landlord.
On 26 September 2025, the landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that: a. The Tribunal made an error of law in finding the termination notice retaliatory; and b. As a result of a misinterpretation of the law under section 54 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”), a substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred, might have occurred, or was likely to occur.
Section 105(1) of the Act 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 landlord has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing. Landlord’s submissions (Ms Driessen)
Ms. Driessen submitted that the Tribunal’s earlier decision dated 19 September 2025 was incorrect and should be reheard. She submitted that: a. The 90-day termination notice was not retaliatory, but issued because the owner intended to sell the property. Therefore, the owner would like to have a vacant house. See section 51(1) of the Act. No reason was necessary. b. The tenants had claimed the 90-day notice to terminate was served 48 hours after the first Tribunal hearing on 18 August 2025, but it was in fact issued approximately 80 hours later, based on the email timestamp (sent on 21 August 2025 at 5:20pm). c. Under the Act, landlords are not required to provide reasons when issuing a 90-day notice, and the Tribunal’s earlier interpretation of the law was, in her view, incorrect. d. The landlord was not willing to pay the exemplary damages and the filing fee (total being $778) ordered under the previous decision, which she considered unjustified. e. She noted that the tenants had since vacated the property but allegedly failed to pay rent and water charges at the end of the tenancy. These matters would, she said, be raised in a separate claim.
Ms. Driessen concluded that there had been no procedural or error by the landlord and that the 90-day termination notice was properly issued in compliance with section 51(1) of the Act. Tenants’ submissions (Ms Hagger)
Ms. Hagger submitted that a. The 90-day notice was received within 48 hours of the previous Tribunal hearing (held on Monday, 18 August 2025), likely on Wednesday, 20 August 2025. b. Even if the difference was a few hours, the notice was issued within the same week, making it appear retaliatory. c. If the landlord truly intended to sell the property, notice could have been provided before the hearing, or evidence of the sale preparations could have been shown. d. Instead, the landlord continued arranging maintenance visits and giving assurances about repairs until shortly before issuing the notice, suggesting the decision was made because she won the August 2025 Tribunal proceedings. e. She also challenged the landlord’s claim that all maintenance issues were resolved, stating that a leaking window remained unfixed when they vacated. Ms. Hagger said she had video evidence from their final inspection day showing the window still leaked.
Ms Hagger maintained that the landlord’s conduct demonstrated that the termination notice was issued in retaliation for her winning the August 2025 Tribunal proceedings and asserting her legal rights against the landlord. Analysis
Ms. Driessen is correct that her client is not required to give a reason when issuing a 90-day termination notice under section 51(1) of the Act.
Equally, section 54 of the Act does not prevent a tenant from filing an application with the Tribunal for an order declaring that the notice was retaliatory.
In other words, whether a termination notice is retaliatory is a question of fact.
In paragraphs 21 to 26 of the original decision dated 19 September 2025, I stated: “Analysis
I do not accept Ms Tuatagaloa and Ms Driessen’s submissions that the termination notice was unrelated to the Tribunal proceedings or complaints Ms Hagger made against the landlord.
The explanation was that the landlord had already intended to issue a 90-day termination notice before the Tribunal hearing on 18 August 2025, but Ms Tuatagaloa and Ms Driessen advised the landlord to delay it until after the Tribunal hearing's outcome. However, no documentary evidence was provided to support this claim. There are no written instructions, or emails before the Tribunal hearing showing that the landlord had already decided to end the tenancy.
In contrast, the timing of the notice is clear and undisputed. The Tribunal issued its order on 18 August 2025. The termination notice was served on 21 August 2025. The proximity of these two events strongly supports Ms Hagger’s case that the notice was motivated, at least partly, by her having exercised her legal rights and succeeded in the Tribunal.
Although I have not placed much weight on the fact that the landlord has not yet fully complied with the earlier Tribunal order, the landlord has not persuaded me that his failure to comply has, at least in part, motivated him to instruct the property manager to issue a termination notice.
I also note that Ms Driessen said in evidence that the landlord instructed her to issue the notice “on the day of the court hearing.” That admission itself suggests a direct connection between the Tribunal proceedings and the termination notice. The submission that the landlord would have issued notice regardless of the outcome is speculative and unsupported by evidence.
Accordingly, I have concluded that the 90-day termination notice is retaliatory. I also find the landlord has committed an unlawful act.”
If, as Ms Driessen submitted, I was wrong in my interpretation of the law, the appropriate course of action to take is to appeal the original decision.
Further, the landlord is not happy with the original decision ordering exemplary damages against him. This is evident when Ms Driessen said that her client was not willing to pay the exemplary damages as ordered.
Accordingly, I am not satisfied that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5331939 — Leaks at 21 Duckworth Road, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5331939 — Leaks at 21 Duckworth Road, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions