What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5363566 about?

The tribunal order states: The application by the landlord for a rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5363566?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5363566?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5363566?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12748159-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5363566 about?

The tribunal order states: The application by the landlord for a rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5363566?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5363566?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5363566?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12748159-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Unit 513, 139B Greys Avenue, Auckland Central, Tenancy Tribunal Case 5363566 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application by the landlord for a rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, by telephone.
On 30/10/2025 the Tribunal made an order dismissing the landlord’s application for termination of the tenancy.
The same day the landlord applied for a rehearing on the following summarised grounds: a. Breach of natural justice, b. Improper admission of tenant’s evidence, c. Rejection of the landlord’s evidence on impact on staff, d. Miscategorising and dismissal of prior incidents by the tenant, e. Omission of threat to assault staff leading to misinterpretation of the severity of previous behaviour by the tenant, f. Incorrect interpretation of video evidence, g. Not adjourning to allow the landlord to provide further evidence in regard to apologies by the tenant, h. Not considering the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(e). Law
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”.
In the District Court judgement of Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, His Honour Judge Touhy confirmed that the words “substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice”, set a high standard, stating: “They most obviously apply ... to cases of procedural error eg. a hearing which takes place in the absence of a party who has not been given notice of it; the improper admission or rejection of evidence; misconduct by the adjudicator or by one of the parties or a witness. The words may also encompass the discovery of new and important evidence not previously available. ... In my view, however, the words do not cover a complaint that the Tribunal was merely mistaken or wrong in its findings of fact or in its application of the law. There are two reasons for this. First the strength of the language in s 105 is such that something more than a mere wrong decision must be shown. The section does not speak of a decision being wrong, but of a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurring. This implies obvious injustice, not merely an erroneous decision. Secondly, if a mere erroneous decision is enough, whether the error is factual or legal or both, it would enable parties to in effect appeal by way of an application for rehearing, and then again to the District Court against the grant or refusal of the application for rehearing. Not only does this offend the general hierarchical nature of the appeal system, it would also make the time limit for filing notice of appeal against an original decision nugatory.”
The High Court in Angelo v Lehr [2022] NZHC 3033 confirmed that it was not a miscarriage of justice to decline a rehearing just because evidence was not considered at the original hearing, when that evidence could have been produced at the original hearing.
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. In Jemma Trust v Rutherford (DC North Shore, CIV-2009-044-2056, 11 December 1999), the District Court quoted an extract from the Court of Appeal outlining the relevant considerations: The principles upon which further evidence is admitted are designed to balance the interests of the person seeking to adduce such evidence on the one hand with the interests of the opposite party is on the other. They are also designed to reflect the public interest in ensuring, so far as is possible, that parties put up their best case at trial. Any other approach would be very wasteful of public resources. The conventional requirements are that the further evidence must be fresh, it must be credible and it must be cogent. Evidence is not regarded as fresh if it could with reasonable diligence have been produced at the trial....While the absence of freshness is not an absolute disqualification, the criteria for admission in such circumstances must be very strict. In our view, when the evidence is not fresh it should not be admitted unless the circumstances are exceptional and the grounds compelling.
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 the landlord has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing: a. The fact that the landlord disagrees with the decision, although understandable, is not a ground for a rehearing, b. Nor is it a second opportunity for the landlord to present their case, c. The Tribunal process did not disadvantage the landlord in any way, d. At no point during the hearing did the landlord seek an adjournment to provide further evidence, e. The interests of justice require parties to put their best case forward at the hearing and the landlord had ample opportunity to do this, f. The onus is on the landlord to provide the necessary evidence to support their claim. If they fail to do so then the application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, g. Although not all evidence presented at the hearing by the landlord was referred to it was carefully considered, including the videos and witness, h. The tenant provided verbal evidence which the Tribunal also considered, i. In making any decision it is for the Adjudicator to weigh that evidence and decide which is more likely than not and what is preferred, j. Where there are serious allegations, or important issues at stake, which was the case here, the Tribunal needs a level of supporting evidence benefitting the matters to be decided, k. In exercising the discretion, the Tribunal considered the effects on the landlord’s other tenants and staff.
I consider no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred which justifies a rehearing.
It is open to the landlord to appeal the decision if they wish to do so.
The landlord also has available other options for termination of the tenancy, as it has demonstrated by already having issued two section 55A notices, subsequent to the hearing on 30 October 2025.
The application for a rehearing fails.

Order

The application by the landlord for a rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, by telephone.
On 30/10/2025 the Tribunal made an order dismissing the landlord’s application for termination of the tenancy.
The same day the landlord applied for a rehearing on the following summarised grounds: a. Breach of natural justice, b. Improper admission of tenant’s evidence, c. Rejection of the landlord’s evidence on impact on staff, d. Miscategorising and dismissal of prior incidents by the tenant, e. Omission of threat to assault staff leading to misinterpretation of the severity of previous behaviour by the tenant, f. Incorrect interpretation of video evidence, g. Not adjourning to allow the landlord to provide further evidence in regard to apologies by the tenant, h. Not considering the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(e). Law
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”.
In the District Court judgement of Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, His Honour Judge Touhy confirmed that the words “substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice”, set a high standard, stating: “They most obviously apply ... to cases of procedural error eg. a hearing which takes place in the absence of a party who has not been given notice of it; the improper admission or rejection of evidence; misconduct by the adjudicator or by one of the parties or a witness. The words may also encompass the discovery of new and important evidence not previously available. ... In my view, however, the words do not cover a complaint that the Tribunal was merely mistaken or wrong in its findings of fact or in its application of the law. There are two reasons for this. First the strength of the language in s 105 is such that something more than a mere wrong decision must be shown. The section does not speak of a decision being wrong, but of a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurring. This implies obvious injustice, not merely an erroneous decision. Secondly, if a mere erroneous decision is enough, whether the error is factual or legal or both, it would enable parties to in effect appeal by way of an application for rehearing, and then again to the District Court against the grant or refusal of the application for rehearing. Not only does this offend the general hierarchical nature of the appeal system, it would also make the time limit for filing notice of appeal against an original decision nugatory.”
The High Court in Angelo v Lehr [2022] NZHC 3033 confirmed that it was not a miscarriage of justice to decline a rehearing just because evidence was not considered at the original hearing, when that evidence could have been produced at the original hearing.
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. In Jemma Trust v Rutherford (DC North Shore, CIV-2009-044-2056, 11 December 1999), the District Court quoted an extract from the Court of Appeal outlining the relevant considerations: The principles upon which further evidence is admitted are designed to balance the interests of the person seeking to adduce such evidence on the one hand with the interests of the opposite party is on the other. They are also designed to reflect the public interest in ensuring, so far as is possible, that parties put up their best case at trial. Any other approach would be very wasteful of public resources. The conventional requirements are that the further evidence must be fresh, it must be credible and it must be cogent. Evidence is not regarded as fresh if it could with reasonable diligence have been produced at the trial....While the absence of freshness is not an absolute disqualification, the criteria for admission in such circumstances must be very strict. In our view, when the evidence is not fresh it should not be admitted unless the circumstances are exceptional and the grounds compelling.
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 the landlord has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing: a. The fact that the landlord disagrees with the decision, although understandable, is not a ground for a rehearing, b. Nor is it a second opportunity for the landlord to present their case, c. The Tribunal process did not disadvantage the landlord in any way, d. At no point during the hearing did the landlord seek an adjournment to provide further evidence, e. The interests of justice require parties to put their best case forward at the hearing and the landlord had ample opportunity to do this, f. The onus is on the landlord to provide the necessary evidence to support their claim. If they fail to do so then the application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not, g. Although not all evidence presented at the hearing by the landlord was referred to it was carefully considered, including the videos and witness, h. The tenant provided verbal evidence which the Tribunal also considered, i. In making any decision it is for the Adjudicator to weigh that evidence and decide which is more likely than not and what is preferred, j. Where there are serious allegations, or important issues at stake, which was the case here, the Tribunal needs a level of supporting evidence benefitting the matters to be decided, k. In exercising the discretion, the Tribunal considered the effects on the landlord’s other tenants and staff.
I consider no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred which justifies a rehearing.
It is open to the landlord to appeal the decision if they wish to do so.
The landlord also has available other options for termination of the tenancy, as it has demonstrated by already having issued two section 55A notices, subsequent to the hearing on 30 October 2025.
The application for a rehearing fails.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5363566 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Unit 513, 139B Greys Avenue, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5363566 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Unit 513, 139B Greys Avenue, Auckland Central,

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions