What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5339416 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5339416?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5339416?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5339416?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12789060-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5339416 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5339416?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5339416?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5339416?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12789060-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 4, 30 Hanson Street, Mount Cook, Wellington Tenancy Tribunal Case 5339416 — Tenancy dispute

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held remotely on 27 November 2025. MF attended for both tenants.
On 21 October 2025, the Tribunal made an order in favour of the landlord for rent owing under a fixed term tenancy contract.
On 24 October 2025, the tenants applied for a rehearing on the grounds that their family is experiencing severe financial hardship.
Ms Foalemaa explained to me today that she was unable to participate in the first hearing as she was about to catch a flight and that Ms Ah Hoy, who did attend the first hearing, was not as confident in explaining things. She said she had new evidence to better explain the hardship her family is experiencing and would like the Tribunal to be able to consider this.
I now consider all these reasons.

When will a rehearing be granted?

Section 105(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 says 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”.
Rehearings are about challenges to processes and procedures. Usually, the party applying 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.
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?

I have decided that the tenants have not established the grounds for a rehearing. My reasons for this are:- a. I spoke to Ms Foalemaa at the start of the first hearing, and she told me she was at the airport and asked me to telephone Ms Ah Hoy instead. Neither tenant asked for an adjournment so that Ms Foalemaa could attend. Even if they had, I may not have granted one because the hearing had been scheduled for several weeks and it is usually enough that one tenant can attend. b. Ms Ah Hoy did participate in the first hearing and told me that the tenants were experiencing financial hardship particularly as a family member had recently become ill and they were now also supporting that person. I understood what she told me. c. Ms Foalemaa showed me the new evidence today. This verifies the illness of her family member and some of the additional costs related to this. I accept that this is a difficult time for the tenants and their wider family. d. If I understand the tenants correctly, they are saying that the situation with their family member is unforeseen and affects their circumstances. After thinking about this carefully, I have decided that the new evidence would not have changed my decision in the first hearing. This is because:- i. If tenants want the Tribunal to consider reducing the term of a fixed term tenancy because of an unforeseen change in their circumstances, they must make their own application to the Tribunal under s66 RTA. The tenants knew this because they had been unsuccessful with a previous application for this reason. They had not made a new application to the Tribunal about the new change in their circumstances. ii. Even if they had applied again under s66 RTA, it would not have materially changed the outcome of my first decision. Ms Foalemaa said that their family member travelled to New Zealand for treatment in September. This means the tenants’ circumstances had changed about a month before the first hearing. I would still have awarded the landlord the amount of its rent loss up to the date of the first hearing as being reasonable compensation. This is allowed for under s66 RTA.
I have decided there are insufficient grounds to grant a rehearing, so this application is dismissed.
The order dated 21 October 2025 remains in place.
There was discussion today about the tenants making a written repayment proposal to the landlord to avoid debt collection costs.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held remotely on 27 November 2025. MF attended for both tenants.
On 21 October 2025, the Tribunal made an order in favour of the landlord for rent owing under a fixed term tenancy contract.
On 24 October 2025, the tenants applied for a rehearing on the grounds that their family is experiencing severe financial hardship.
Ms Foalemaa explained to me today that she was unable to participate in the first hearing as she was about to catch a flight and that Ms Ah Hoy, who did attend the first hearing, was not as confident in explaining things. She said she had new evidence to better explain the hardship her family is experiencing and would like the Tribunal to be able to consider this.
I now consider all these reasons.

When will a rehearing be granted?

Section 105(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 says 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”.
Rehearings are about challenges to processes and procedures. Usually, the party applying 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.
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?

I have decided that the tenants have not established the grounds for a rehearing. My reasons for this are:- a. I spoke to Ms Foalemaa at the start of the first hearing, and she told me she was at the airport and asked me to telephone Ms Ah Hoy instead. Neither tenant asked for an adjournment so that Ms Foalemaa could attend. Even if they had, I may not have granted one because the hearing had been scheduled for several weeks and it is usually enough that one tenant can attend. b. Ms Ah Hoy did participate in the first hearing and told me that the tenants were experiencing financial hardship particularly as a family member had recently become ill and they were now also supporting that person. I understood what she told me. c. Ms Foalemaa showed me the new evidence today. This verifies the illness of her family member and some of the additional costs related to this. I accept that this is a difficult time for the tenants and their wider family. d. If I understand the tenants correctly, they are saying that the situation with their family member is unforeseen and affects their circumstances. After thinking about this carefully, I have decided that the new evidence would not have changed my decision in the first hearing. This is because:- i. If tenants want the Tribunal to consider reducing the term of a fixed term tenancy because of an unforeseen change in their circumstances, they must make their own application to the Tribunal under s66 RTA. The tenants knew this because they had been unsuccessful with a previous application for this reason. They had not made a new application to the Tribunal about the new change in their circumstances. ii. Even if they had applied again under s66 RTA, it would not have materially changed the outcome of my first decision. Ms Foalemaa said that their family member travelled to New Zealand for treatment in September. This means the tenants’ circumstances had changed about a month before the first hearing. I would still have awarded the landlord the amount of its rent loss up to the date of the first hearing as being reasonable compensation. This is allowed for under s66 RTA.
I have decided there are insufficient grounds to grant a rehearing, so this application is dismissed.
The order dated 21 October 2025 remains in place.
There was discussion today about the tenants making a written repayment proposal to the landlord to avoid debt collection costs.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5339416 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 4, 30 Hanson Street, Mount Cook, Wellington

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5339416 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 4, 30 Hanson Street, Mount Cook, Wellington

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

When will a rehearing be granted?

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

When will a rehearing be granted?

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions