What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5343080 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 5343080?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5343080?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5343080?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13227231-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5343080 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 5343080?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5343080?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5343080?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13227231-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

40 Wimbledon Crescent, Glen Innes, Auckland 1072 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5343080 — Cleanliness

Order

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

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on 3 March 2026 by video.
On 18 December 2025 the Tribunal made an order for costs associated with ending a fixed term tenancy early and carpet cleaning as well as refund of the bond. The remaining claims were dismissed.
On 18 December 2025, Isa Seow applied for a rehearing on the grounds that there were concerns about the fairness and impartiality of the process including: a) The presence of an influential third party without proper notice; b) Incorrect assumptions about profit motive; c) Adjudicator’s assistance to the respondent; d) Not allowed to cross examine; and e) Evidence that the landlord considered there was misjustice before the results were out.
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 Isa Seow has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
The landlord referred to the presence of a third party in the hearing. The tenant had a support person present in the hearing. That person was not a representative or counsel which the Act requires 1 the Tribunal to approve if appropriate.
Parties are generally allowed to have a support person present at the hearing. This is to help them feel comfortable and supported, especially if they are nervous or unfamiliar with the process. The landlord could have had a support person also, but did not do so. There is no requirement for the other party to know that a support person will be attending in advance of the hearing.
The landlord referred to the support person holding a mobile phone during the hearing. The tenant said that she was looking at her evidence on her mobile phone so this may have been the phone that the support person was holding. The landlord did not raise this issue during the hearing, so it was not noticed as a problem by the Adjudicator.
The landlord stated that the Adjudicator made an unfounded assumption that they are running their home as a business and will profit from it in the future. The Adjudicator would have referred to the landlord receiving money from the tenant in exchange for providing the premises for the tenant to live in. That is a 1 Section 93(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 description of the basic legal definition of a tenancy under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. A tenancy is defined 2 as the right to occupy residential premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent. In other words, the landlord grants the tenant the right to live in the premises, and the tenant pays rent in return. This exchange – occupation for payment – is what creates the tenancy relationship and brings it within the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal.
The Adjudicator denies making a statement in relation to the landlord earning money in the future due to appreciation of the value of the property because that is hypothetical. What is a fact is that the landlord owns the property and can sell it in the future.
The landlord claimed that the Adjudicator assisted the tenant throughout the hearing. In relation to this the landlord referred to the provision of a water rates invoice for reimbursement where the Adjudicator requested invoices for all months. If a landlord is seeking reimbursement for water rates it is appropriate for the Tribunal to ask for all invoices for the period to ensure that the amount sought was accurate. The landlord must prove that the debt was owed, and it is a matter of evidence for the Tribunal rather than the Adjudicator advocating for the tenant.
The landlord claims that he was not able to cross examine the tenant. At the hearing he referred to section 93(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Section 93(1) gives the Tribunal the power to regulate its own procedure, including how evidence is given and tested. This means the Tribunal can allow parties to question each other, but it is not required to follow strict court procedures. There are times where one party is significantly more confident, experienced, or assertive than the other. In such circumstances the Adjudicator may decide not to allow direct questioning (cross-examination) between the parties to ensure both parties are treated fairly, and the hearing remains accessible and non-intimidating.
Finally, the landlord referred to evidence that he was not happy with the process even before the Adjudicator released the order following the hearing. This evidence confirms that the landlord was not happy with the likely outcome of the hearing which is accepted.
While both parties sought name suppression only the tenant’s name is suppressed because the landlord has not succeeded with his application.

Order

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

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on 3 March 2026 by video.
On 18 December 2025 the Tribunal made an order for costs associated with ending a fixed term tenancy early and carpet cleaning as well as refund of the bond. The remaining claims were dismissed.
On 18 December 2025, Isa Seow applied for a rehearing on the grounds that there were concerns about the fairness and impartiality of the process including: a) The presence of an influential third party without proper notice; b) Incorrect assumptions about profit motive; c) Adjudicator’s assistance to the respondent; d) Not allowed to cross examine; and e) Evidence that the landlord considered there was misjustice before the results were out.
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 Isa Seow has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
The landlord referred to the presence of a third party in the hearing. The tenant had a support person present in the hearing. That person was not a representative or counsel which the Act requires 1 the Tribunal to approve if appropriate.
Parties are generally allowed to have a support person present at the hearing. This is to help them feel comfortable and supported, especially if they are nervous or unfamiliar with the process. The landlord could have had a support person also, but did not do so. There is no requirement for the other party to know that a support person will be attending in advance of the hearing.
The landlord referred to the support person holding a mobile phone during the hearing. The tenant said that she was looking at her evidence on her mobile phone so this may have been the phone that the support person was holding. The landlord did not raise this issue during the hearing, so it was not noticed as a problem by the Adjudicator.
The landlord stated that the Adjudicator made an unfounded assumption that they are running their home as a business and will profit from it in the future. The Adjudicator would have referred to the landlord receiving money from the tenant in exchange for providing the premises for the tenant to live in. That is a 1 Section 93(3) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 description of the basic legal definition of a tenancy under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. A tenancy is defined 2 as the right to occupy residential premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent. In other words, the landlord grants the tenant the right to live in the premises, and the tenant pays rent in return. This exchange – occupation for payment – is what creates the tenancy relationship and brings it within the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal.
The Adjudicator denies making a statement in relation to the landlord earning money in the future due to appreciation of the value of the property because that is hypothetical. What is a fact is that the landlord owns the property and can sell it in the future.
The landlord claimed that the Adjudicator assisted the tenant throughout the hearing. In relation to this the landlord referred to the provision of a water rates invoice for reimbursement where the Adjudicator requested invoices for all months. If a landlord is seeking reimbursement for water rates it is appropriate for the Tribunal to ask for all invoices for the period to ensure that the amount sought was accurate. The landlord must prove that the debt was owed, and it is a matter of evidence for the Tribunal rather than the Adjudicator advocating for the tenant.
The landlord claims that he was not able to cross examine the tenant. At the hearing he referred to section 93(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Section 93(1) gives the Tribunal the power to regulate its own procedure, including how evidence is given and tested. This means the Tribunal can allow parties to question each other, but it is not required to follow strict court procedures. There are times where one party is significantly more confident, experienced, or assertive than the other. In such circumstances the Adjudicator may decide not to allow direct questioning (cross-examination) between the parties to ensure both parties are treated fairly, and the hearing remains accessible and non-intimidating.
Finally, the landlord referred to evidence that he was not happy with the process even before the Adjudicator released the order following the hearing. This evidence confirms that the landlord was not happy with the likely outcome of the hearing which is accepted.
While both parties sought name suppression only the tenant’s name is suppressed because the landlord has not succeeded with his application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5343080 — Cleanliness at 40 Wimbledon Crescent, Glen Innes, Auckland 1072

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5343080 — Cleanliness at 40 Wimbledon Crescent, Glen Innes, Auckland 1072

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

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions