What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5343925 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5343925?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5343925?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5343925?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13025986-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5343925 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5343925?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5343925?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5343925?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13025986-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

225A Pine Avenue, South New Brighton, Christchurch 8062 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5343925 — Exemplary damages

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended a rehearing hearing today.
On 11 November 2025, the Tribunal made an order for refund of the Bond to the tenant and awarding compensation and exemplary damages.
On 27 November 2025, Mrs Gibson applied for a rehearing on the grounds that she had already paid the bond directly to the tenants and was out of town for the original hearing date.
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”.
Importantly, s 105(2) of the RTA provides that applications for a rehearing must be filed within five working days of the date of the order. This time limit is set for good reason, to ensure finality of Tenancy Tribunal orders and certainty for both parties.
Section 105(2) of the RTA also allows for the Tribunal to give further time for the filing of an application for a rehearing. This recognises the rare situation where there may be good grounds for a rehearing application being filed late, for example, where the decision went to the wrong address (and therefore did not come to the attention of the applicant).
Mrs Gibson did not lodge her rehearing application within 5 workings days of the Order. In her application she provided a range of health reasons (hers and others) for failing to do so, but did not provide any evidence to substantiate those claims. Mrs Gibson did not establish “good grounds” for an extension of time for filing the application for hearing. The application is dismissed.
Even though the application was out of time, I have also considered the merits of it.
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 Mr & Mrs Gibson have failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
Mr & Mrs Gibson did not attend the substantive hearing on 29 October 2025. As noted in the Order dated 11 November 2025: “2. The landlord did not attend. The Tribunal file shows that the parties were advised of the hearing date on 10 October 2025. There is a record of Mrs Gibson phoning Tenancy Services contact centre on 24 October and advising that she would not attend the hearing. The file note records that she was told to call the Ministry of Justice with any adjournment request.
The Tribunal did not receive any adjournment request from Mrs Gibson. The hearing went ahead as scheduled.”
Mr & Mrs Gibson did not apply for an adjournment. Even if they had, I am not persuaded that one would have been granted. Only Mrs Gibson was travelling to Auckland on the day of the hearing. Mr Gibson could have attended.
Further, the Notice of Hearing sent to the parties on 10 October 2025, clearly records: “If you are the other party and do not appear, your view will not be heard and the Tribunal will still be able to decide, which may mean that you have to pay money or leave the tenancy. If you do not wish to attend the hearing, you may provide a written statement in advance of the hearing setting out your claim or response to the claim, that the Tribunal can consider.”
Mrs Gibson claims to have submitted a “letter” in response to the claims which was not considered by the Tribunal. That letter is a note dated 18 October 2025– “to whom it may concern” stating that she had repaid the bond to the tenant. It also states that she would be away from Christchurch on the hearing date and is not going to argue with these tenants anymore.
There is no record of the letter being sent, or who it was sent to. Even if it had been on the Tribunal file at the date of the first hearing, it would not have altered the outcome. The bond was lodged at the Bond Centre, an order was made releasing it to the tenants.
Mrs Gibson has made a payment to the tenants for $480. She did not advise the tenants of the payment, and there is no narration on the tenants banking app showing what the payment was for. That amount can be deducted to from the amount awarded on 11 November 2025, with the result that $3,192 remains owing under the 11 November Order for enforcement purposes. The payment does not alter the outcome of the first hearing.
Mr and Mrs Gibson also wanted an opportunity to dispute the substantive findings in the 11 November Order. Their opportunity to do so was on 29 October 2025. Put simply, having failed to attend the hearing, or provide any detailed responses to the claims, or apply for an adjournment, Mr & Mrs Gibson now want to defend the claims. The evidence clearly shows that Mrs Gibson elected not to attend the first hearing, she had other arrangements and decided not to attend. She did not apply for an adjournment. Mr Gibson could have attended. It is well established that a rehearing should not be granted in these circumstances. In any event, I am not persuaded that the information put forward by Mr & Mrs Gibson at the hearing today would have altered the outcome of the first hearing.
The application for re-hearing is dismissed.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended a rehearing hearing today.
On 11 November 2025, the Tribunal made an order for refund of the Bond to the tenant and awarding compensation and exemplary damages.
On 27 November 2025, Mrs Gibson applied for a rehearing on the grounds that she had already paid the bond directly to the tenants and was out of town for the original hearing date.
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”.
Importantly, s 105(2) of the RTA provides that applications for a rehearing must be filed within five working days of the date of the order. This time limit is set for good reason, to ensure finality of Tenancy Tribunal orders and certainty for both parties.
Section 105(2) of the RTA also allows for the Tribunal to give further time for the filing of an application for a rehearing. This recognises the rare situation where there may be good grounds for a rehearing application being filed late, for example, where the decision went to the wrong address (and therefore did not come to the attention of the applicant).
Mrs Gibson did not lodge her rehearing application within 5 workings days of the Order. In her application she provided a range of health reasons (hers and others) for failing to do so, but did not provide any evidence to substantiate those claims. Mrs Gibson did not establish “good grounds” for an extension of time for filing the application for hearing. The application is dismissed.
Even though the application was out of time, I have also considered the merits of it.
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 Mr & Mrs Gibson have failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
Mr & Mrs Gibson did not attend the substantive hearing on 29 October 2025. As noted in the Order dated 11 November 2025: “2. The landlord did not attend. The Tribunal file shows that the parties were advised of the hearing date on 10 October 2025. There is a record of Mrs Gibson phoning Tenancy Services contact centre on 24 October and advising that she would not attend the hearing. The file note records that she was told to call the Ministry of Justice with any adjournment request.
The Tribunal did not receive any adjournment request from Mrs Gibson. The hearing went ahead as scheduled.”
Mr & Mrs Gibson did not apply for an adjournment. Even if they had, I am not persuaded that one would have been granted. Only Mrs Gibson was travelling to Auckland on the day of the hearing. Mr Gibson could have attended.
Further, the Notice of Hearing sent to the parties on 10 October 2025, clearly records: “If you are the other party and do not appear, your view will not be heard and the Tribunal will still be able to decide, which may mean that you have to pay money or leave the tenancy. If you do not wish to attend the hearing, you may provide a written statement in advance of the hearing setting out your claim or response to the claim, that the Tribunal can consider.”
Mrs Gibson claims to have submitted a “letter” in response to the claims which was not considered by the Tribunal. That letter is a note dated 18 October 2025– “to whom it may concern” stating that she had repaid the bond to the tenant. It also states that she would be away from Christchurch on the hearing date and is not going to argue with these tenants anymore.
There is no record of the letter being sent, or who it was sent to. Even if it had been on the Tribunal file at the date of the first hearing, it would not have altered the outcome. The bond was lodged at the Bond Centre, an order was made releasing it to the tenants.
Mrs Gibson has made a payment to the tenants for $480. She did not advise the tenants of the payment, and there is no narration on the tenants banking app showing what the payment was for. That amount can be deducted to from the amount awarded on 11 November 2025, with the result that $3,192 remains owing under the 11 November Order for enforcement purposes. The payment does not alter the outcome of the first hearing.
Mr and Mrs Gibson also wanted an opportunity to dispute the substantive findings in the 11 November Order. Their opportunity to do so was on 29 October 2025. Put simply, having failed to attend the hearing, or provide any detailed responses to the claims, or apply for an adjournment, Mr & Mrs Gibson now want to defend the claims. The evidence clearly shows that Mrs Gibson elected not to attend the first hearing, she had other arrangements and decided not to attend. She did not apply for an adjournment. Mr Gibson could have attended. It is well established that a rehearing should not be granted in these circumstances. In any event, I am not persuaded that the information put forward by Mr & Mrs Gibson at the hearing today would have altered the outcome of the first hearing.
The application for re-hearing is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5343925 — Exemplary damages at 225A Pine Avenue, South New Brighton, Christchurch 8062

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5343925 — Exemplary damages at 225A Pine Avenue, South New Brighton, Christchurch 8062

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

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions