What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5359665 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 5359665?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5359665?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5359665?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13191203-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5359665 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 5359665?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5359665?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5359665?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13191203-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5359665 — Tenancy dispute

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the tenants’ names and identifying details.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The stay of proceedings has now lapsed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, which was conducted by videoconference. Mr Jha, director of Miru Properties Limited, appeared for the landlord. [The tenant’s representative] spoke on behalf of the tenants. Background
On 29 October 2025 the Tribunal issued orders determining the applications filed by the parties regarding the five tenancies located at [address suppressed]. The tenants filed five applications for the return of their bond. The application numbers are set out below: • 5303318 - [address 1] • 5303559 - [address 2] • 5303599 - [address 3] • 5303580 - [address 4] • 5303600 - [address 5]
The landlord filed a counterclaim, application number 5359665, seeking compensation from the tenants.
In terms of the five tenant applications, the tenants were refunded their bonds in full. The landlord’s application was dismissed, as the landlord did not attend the hearing.
Mr Jha applied for a rehearing, which was received on 3 November 2025. He stated he was overseas, having medical treatment, and was unable to wake up at 1.30am (the local time in India) to participate in the hearing. He had asked for an adjournment, so he could provide proof, but this request was declined. He wrote that the tenants had provided incorrect evidence, he wanted the opportunity to provide the truth, noting there was no exit inspection as claimed by the tenants. He questioned how the adjudicator could determine the matter by only listening to one side, whose evidence he considered to be false. He referred to an email concerning a case management hearing.
The tenants wrote to the Tribunal in response, setting out why they opposed the landlord’s application. The hearing
At the hearing, Mr Jha explained that he was overseas, and had requested that the hearing be held after 2pm. He was overseas for medical reasons and, due to the 7 hour time difference, could not get up that early in the morning. There was no-one else at the company who could attend on his behalf. He felt there had been a miscarriage of justice, because he was not able to defend himself. He disputed the tenants’ evidence, stating there was no exit inspection conducted, just a handover. He was shocked that the claim was dismissed.
Mr Jha also stated he had only received a copy of one of the applications, and had asked Tenancy Services to send him copies of all the applications. He was given further time after the hearing to produce these emails, but this evidence has not been provided.
The tenants refuted the landlord’s claims regarding the evidence they had provided at the hearing, and explained their reasons. They referred to the documentary evidence submitted for the hearing. Legal framework
Section 105(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA) 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.
In Emshoff v McInnes (DC Auckland, TT 1038/89, 30 October 1989), the District Court held that, where a respondent does not appear at the original hearing, the relevant considerations are • Is there a reasonable excuse for the non-appearance? • Did they act promptly? • Is there a defence which ought to be heard? • Will the applicant suffer hardship if a rehearing is granted?

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

I acknowledge the landlord’s circumstances and note the reasons provided. However, having had regard to the relevant considerations in Emshoff v McInnes (above), and taking into account the evidence and submissions of both parties, I find that the grounds for a rehearing have not been established, as set out below.
In this case, I do not find any procedural flaws. The landlord was clearly aware of the hearing on 29 October 2025, had been properly notified of it, and was informed that the request for an adjournment had been declined.
In terms of the reasons for non-attendance, the landlord has not provided any medical evidence in support. It is acknowledged that the time of the hearing was not convenient for the landlord. However, that, in itself is not a reasonable excuse for not attending the hearing, particularly when the landlord was aware that the adjournment request had been declined.
The history also shows that the applications were previously adjourned at the landlord’s request to accommodate the landlord’s travel. The hearings for the five tenant applications were originally scheduled for 5 August 2025. The parties were notified of this hearing on 24 July 2025. This hearing was scheduled to proceed as an in-person hearing at [location suppressed]. The following day, on 25 July 2025, the landlord requested an adjournment on the basis that he was overseas and there was no one else available from the company to act in his place. He asked that the matter be rescheduled after 16 September 2025.
Having considered the reasons, the landlord’s adjournment request was granted by the Tribunal. On 10 September 2025, the parties were notified of the re- scheduled hearing, which was to take place on 29 October 2025 at 9.30am. This hearing was to also proceed as an in-person hearing at [location suppressed]. Therefore, the Tribunal Registry accommodated the landlord’s request for the matter to be rescheduled for a date after 16 September 2025.
The landlord then filed its own application, number 5359665, on 5 October 2025. This matter was scheduled with the other tenant applications, and the parties were notified, on 15 October 2025.
The landlord then requested an adjournment of all matters on the basis that he was overseas for medical purposes, and there was no one else who could attend in his place. The Tribunal Registry wrote to the landlord advising that it would seek the tenants’ consent. The tenants opposed the adjournment.
The adjournment request was then considered by the Tribunal and declined. It was noted that it was unclear from the travel information when the booking was made, and the delays experienced by the tenants was also noted. Furthermore, there was no medical evidence provided in support.
While the adjournment request was declined, the landlord was invited to attend the hearing via teleconference.
On Friday 24 October 2025 at 5.14pm the landlord advised that he was unable to attend at 1.30am (the local time in India), and reiterated that he was having medical treatment. The Tribunal responded on Monday 28 October 2025 at
06am as follows: While acknowledging your concerns, the adjudicator notes that you may attend the hearing, but will need to call into the hearing room at the scheduled time, as you are overseas. It is unfortunate that the timing does not suit, but the hearing has been scheduled within normal business hours. There has been no evidence provided regarding your medical treatment, or when your travel was booked. The adjudicator is also concerned about the impact of further delays on the tenants, since the hearings have previously been adjourned at the landlord’s request. So, at this stage, the hearing will proceed as scheduled.
The hearing then proceeded on 29 October 2025. The landlord did not call into the hearing room at the appointed time. The start of the hearing was delayed, but the landlord still did not call in. Registry staff also tried to contact the landlord by telephone. As noted in the Tribunal order: There was no attendance by the landlord. The landlord was given permission to attend by telephone, but did not call in at the appointed time. As the landlord has been notified, the hearing proceeded.
Following the hearing, the Tribunal issued its order on 29 October 2025.
Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied that the landlord has been given sufficient opportunities to participate in the hearing. The original hearing date was adjourned and re-scheduled to a date that accommodated the landlord’s travel. The landlord has not been prevented from attending the 29 October 2025 hearing, because he was invited to attend by telephone. There has been no medical evidence to support the claim that he was prevented from doing so on medical grounds.
In terms of the other considerations, the landlord has not provided any persuasive evidence in support of the claims made. I further find that the tenants would suffer hardship if a rehearing was granted.
For these reasons, I conclude that the landlord has been unable to establish that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has, or may have occurred, or is likely to occur. Accordingly, the application for rehearing is dismissed.
Consequently, the stay of proceedings has now lapsed, and the original orders may be enforced by the tenants.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5359665 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5359665 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions