What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5349521 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants name and identifying details are suppressed.

How much money was awarded in case 5349521?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5349521?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5349521?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13435378-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5349521 about?

The tribunal order states: The tenants name and identifying details are suppressed.

How much money was awarded in case 5349521?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5349521?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Smoke alarms, Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5349521?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13435378-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

68 New North Road, Eden Terrace, Auckland 1021 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5349521 — Rent arrears

Order

The tenants name and identifying details are suppressed.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The orders of 18 February 2026 for NZTT 5349521 and 5321643 stand and are immediately enforceable.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On the 18 th of February 2026 the Tribunal made an order for rent arrears and compensation in favour of the landlord and compensation and exemplary damages in favour of the tenants in relation to this tenancy.
On the 20 th of February 2026 the applicant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that a late change in hearing mode contributed to a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.
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. Is the late change of mode from in person hearing to video hearing grounds for a rehearing?
The first ground on which the applicant seeks a rehearing is that the hearing was originally scheduled as an in-person hearing at the Auckland District Court, and that on 28 January 2026 the Tribunal changed the mode of hearing to an online hearing with short notice. This change is not in dispute.
The tenants had initially sought a change of mode to an online hearing at the time the hearing was scheduled because they now reside in Australia. However, as I was away, that request was not received or addressed at that time, and it was only brought to my attention again on 28 January 2026, the day before the hearing.
At the rehearing consideration hearing, I asked Ms Melissa He, appearing on behalf of Summit Holdings, how the change from an in-person hearing to a video hearing disadvantaged the respondent, and how that change may have contributed to a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.
Ms He stated that in-person hearings allow for issues to be addressed sequentially, with discussion on each point, and that she has previously attended hearings conducted in that manner, which she considers more optimal. She initially submitted that, had the hearing been conducted in that way, she would have been better able to present her case.
It is appropriate for an adjudicator to require the applicant to present their case in full, followed by the respondent’s full response. Ms He did not dispute that this process was followed, but maintained that it was not optimal. I note that this approach does not relate to the mode of hearing but rather the management of the hearing.
Furthermore, Ms He’s submissions were largely directed to the general non- optimal nature of video hearings, rather than to the specific impact of the change in this case, although she maintained that the change contributed to the outcome.
The format of a hearing is a matter for the tribunal and the adjudicator. The Tribunal determines the mode of hearing, and video hearings are routinely scheduled.
Furthermore, I asked Ms He what further evidence she would have provided or responded to had the matters been heard sequentially. She referred to statements made by the tenants in relation to draughts in the property. Whilst Ms He believes this led to an incorrect finding, her evidence was heard during the hearing and given consideration and in any case is not relevant to the hearing mode.
I accept that the tenants’ application to change the mode of hearing was not dealt with as efficiently as it might have been. However, the Tribunal is sometimes required to make decisions at short notice and while this can be sub optimal it is normal in this jurisdiction and necessary to ensure cases are heard in a timely way and valuable tribunal resource is used efficiently.
Furthermore, The respondent’s submission that the tenants should have been required to attend an in-person hearing in New Zealand, including travelling to New Zealand for that purpose, is not reasonable.
I am satisfied that the respondent was not disadvantaged in presenting their case or responding to the tenants’ case as a result of the change in hearing mode and Ms He for Summit Holdings has not satisfied me that a late change of mode contributed to a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice. Do the Tribunal’s post-hearing directions give rise to grounds for rehearing?
After the hearing, there were a number of matters on which I considered that I had not received sufficient submissions from the parties on.
These included: a) statements made by the tenants during the hearing that the property had been immediately re-let following their departure; b) issues relating to the status of the smoke alarms; and c) the landlord’s claim for water arrears.
I directed the registry to request further information from both parties and provided a deadline of 5pm on the 30 th of January. The information requested was: a) a detailed breakdown of the water charges over the tenancy and each party’s position as to amounts owing; b) submissions and evidence regarding the operation of a radio station at the property from at least 12 October; and c) submissions regarding the status of smoke alarms at the property.
The tenants responded within the timeframe directed, by 30 January 2026. The respondent did not provide a response until 9 February 2026.
In that response, the landlord set out amounts said to be outstanding and provided explanations regarding the alleged re-letting of the property. However, the provision of figures alone and statements without corroborating evidence does not satisfy the respondent’s evidential burden.
I have reviewed Ms He’s email dated 9 February 2026. The email was received prior to the issuance of my orders on 18 February 2026. However, as it was filed outside the timeframe directed, there was no obligation to address it in the decision.
In any event, I did review the material. It consists largely of assertions and statements without corroborating evidence that would have affected the outcome or required further consideration. It does not establish any basis for finding a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.
During the rehearing consideration hearing, I also asked the tenants about their response of 30 January 2026, which the registry had asked them to forward to the respondent. The tenants stated that they understood the registry’s email to be a template, as it referred to forwarding material prior to the hearing, which had already concluded, and therefore did not take steps to provide it to the respondent. I have considered this issue and am satisfied that it did not affect the outcome of the original decision. I note the landlord did not forward their email of 9 February to the tenants either.
For the above reasons above the applicant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing and the application is dismissed.

Should I make orders for the lodgement of the bond?

When the re-hearing consideration hearing was set down a stay of proceedings was also granted. That stay should have prevented the bond from being refunded in accordance with my orders dated 18 February 2026. However, the Bond Centre did not receive that direction, and I am advised that the bond has since been refunded to the tenants in accordance with the orders.
The respondent seeks an order requiring the tenants to re-lodge the bond in accordance with the stay of proceeding I issued on the 23 rd of February 2026.
As the application for rehearing is now declined, there is no basis to make such an order. Filing fee and suppression:
Suppression orders in respect of the tenants will continue, as set out in my decision dated 18 February 2026.

Order

The tenants name and identifying details are suppressed.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The orders of 18 February 2026 for NZTT 5349521 and 5321643 stand and are immediately enforceable.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On the 18 th of February 2026 the Tribunal made an order for rent arrears and compensation in favour of the landlord and compensation and exemplary damages in favour of the tenants in relation to this tenancy.
On the 20 th of February 2026 the applicant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that a late change in hearing mode contributed to a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.
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. Is the late change of mode from in person hearing to video hearing grounds for a rehearing?
The first ground on which the applicant seeks a rehearing is that the hearing was originally scheduled as an in-person hearing at the Auckland District Court, and that on 28 January 2026 the Tribunal changed the mode of hearing to an online hearing with short notice. This change is not in dispute.
The tenants had initially sought a change of mode to an online hearing at the time the hearing was scheduled because they now reside in Australia. However, as I was away, that request was not received or addressed at that time, and it was only brought to my attention again on 28 January 2026, the day before the hearing.
At the rehearing consideration hearing, I asked Ms Melissa He, appearing on behalf of Summit Holdings, how the change from an in-person hearing to a video hearing disadvantaged the respondent, and how that change may have contributed to a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.
Ms He stated that in-person hearings allow for issues to be addressed sequentially, with discussion on each point, and that she has previously attended hearings conducted in that manner, which she considers more optimal. She initially submitted that, had the hearing been conducted in that way, she would have been better able to present her case.
It is appropriate for an adjudicator to require the applicant to present their case in full, followed by the respondent’s full response. Ms He did not dispute that this process was followed, but maintained that it was not optimal. I note that this approach does not relate to the mode of hearing but rather the management of the hearing.
Furthermore, Ms He’s submissions were largely directed to the general non- optimal nature of video hearings, rather than to the specific impact of the change in this case, although she maintained that the change contributed to the outcome.
The format of a hearing is a matter for the tribunal and the adjudicator. The Tribunal determines the mode of hearing, and video hearings are routinely scheduled.
Furthermore, I asked Ms He what further evidence she would have provided or responded to had the matters been heard sequentially. She referred to statements made by the tenants in relation to draughts in the property. Whilst Ms He believes this led to an incorrect finding, her evidence was heard during the hearing and given consideration and in any case is not relevant to the hearing mode.
I accept that the tenants’ application to change the mode of hearing was not dealt with as efficiently as it might have been. However, the Tribunal is sometimes required to make decisions at short notice and while this can be sub optimal it is normal in this jurisdiction and necessary to ensure cases are heard in a timely way and valuable tribunal resource is used efficiently.
Furthermore, The respondent’s submission that the tenants should have been required to attend an in-person hearing in New Zealand, including travelling to New Zealand for that purpose, is not reasonable.
I am satisfied that the respondent was not disadvantaged in presenting their case or responding to the tenants’ case as a result of the change in hearing mode and Ms He for Summit Holdings has not satisfied me that a late change of mode contributed to a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice. Do the Tribunal’s post-hearing directions give rise to grounds for rehearing?
After the hearing, there were a number of matters on which I considered that I had not received sufficient submissions from the parties on.
These included: a) statements made by the tenants during the hearing that the property had been immediately re-let following their departure; b) issues relating to the status of the smoke alarms; and c) the landlord’s claim for water arrears.
I directed the registry to request further information from both parties and provided a deadline of 5pm on the 30 th of January. The information requested was: a) a detailed breakdown of the water charges over the tenancy and each party’s position as to amounts owing; b) submissions and evidence regarding the operation of a radio station at the property from at least 12 October; and c) submissions regarding the status of smoke alarms at the property.
The tenants responded within the timeframe directed, by 30 January 2026. The respondent did not provide a response until 9 February 2026.
In that response, the landlord set out amounts said to be outstanding and provided explanations regarding the alleged re-letting of the property. However, the provision of figures alone and statements without corroborating evidence does not satisfy the respondent’s evidential burden.
I have reviewed Ms He’s email dated 9 February 2026. The email was received prior to the issuance of my orders on 18 February 2026. However, as it was filed outside the timeframe directed, there was no obligation to address it in the decision.
In any event, I did review the material. It consists largely of assertions and statements without corroborating evidence that would have affected the outcome or required further consideration. It does not establish any basis for finding a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.
During the rehearing consideration hearing, I also asked the tenants about their response of 30 January 2026, which the registry had asked them to forward to the respondent. The tenants stated that they understood the registry’s email to be a template, as it referred to forwarding material prior to the hearing, which had already concluded, and therefore did not take steps to provide it to the respondent. I have considered this issue and am satisfied that it did not affect the outcome of the original decision. I note the landlord did not forward their email of 9 February to the tenants either.
For the above reasons above the applicant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing and the application is dismissed.

Should I make orders for the lodgement of the bond?

When the re-hearing consideration hearing was set down a stay of proceedings was also granted. That stay should have prevented the bond from being refunded in accordance with my orders dated 18 February 2026. However, the Bond Centre did not receive that direction, and I am advised that the bond has since been refunded to the tenants in accordance with the orders.
The respondent seeks an order requiring the tenants to re-lodge the bond in accordance with the stay of proceeding I issued on the 23 rd of February 2026.
As the application for rehearing is now declined, there is no basis to make such an order. Filing fee and suppression:
Suppression orders in respect of the tenants will continue, as set out in my decision dated 18 February 2026.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5349521 — Rent arrears at 68 New North Road, Eden Terrace, Auckland 1021

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5349521 — Rent arrears at 68 New North Road, Eden Terrace, Auckland 1021

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should I make orders for the lodgement of the bond?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should I make orders for the lodgement of the bond?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions