What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5380843 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 5380843?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5380843?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5380843?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13256065-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5380843 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 5380843?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5380843?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5380843?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13256065-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5380843 — Rent arrears

Order

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

Reasons

The landlord attended the rehearing consideration hearing (by video), there was no attendance by the tenant.
On 29 January 2026 the Tribunal made an order for termination, rent arrears and outstanding water rates.
On 30 January 2026, the tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that she had thought the hearing was a telephone hearing, and when she tried to phone into the hearing, the hearing was already finished and so she did not get to be heard. She also says that she never received the 14-day notice for rent arrears, and that the property manager didn’t have a copy of the tenancy agreement.
Section 105(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (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”.
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.
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. 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 tenant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing: a. The objective of the Tribunal is to determine expeditiously disputes arising between landlords and tenants. b. The tenant received the notice of hearing that clearly stated it was a video hearing and provided clear instructions on how to join, and those instructions were not read or followed until the hearing was finished. There is no procedural fault by the Tribunal. c. The tenant has not provided any new evidence that was not reasonably available at the first hearing. d. Disagreement with the decision or reliance on evidence provided by the landlord is not ground for a rehearing.
For the avoidance of doubt, the Order of the Tribunal dated 29 January 2026 remains in full force and effect.
Name suppression was granted to the landlord in the previous decision, and for consistency, it is also granted here. R Harvey-Lane 10 March 2026

Order

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

Reasons

The landlord attended the rehearing consideration hearing (by video), there was no attendance by the tenant.
On 29 January 2026 the Tribunal made an order for termination, rent arrears and outstanding water rates.
On 30 January 2026, the tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that she had thought the hearing was a telephone hearing, and when she tried to phone into the hearing, the hearing was already finished and so she did not get to be heard. She also says that she never received the 14-day notice for rent arrears, and that the property manager didn’t have a copy of the tenancy agreement.
Section 105(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (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”.
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.
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. 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 tenant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing: a. The objective of the Tribunal is to determine expeditiously disputes arising between landlords and tenants. b. The tenant received the notice of hearing that clearly stated it was a video hearing and provided clear instructions on how to join, and those instructions were not read or followed until the hearing was finished. There is no procedural fault by the Tribunal. c. The tenant has not provided any new evidence that was not reasonably available at the first hearing. d. Disagreement with the decision or reliance on evidence provided by the landlord is not ground for a rehearing.
For the avoidance of doubt, the Order of the Tribunal dated 29 January 2026 remains in full force and effect.
Name suppression was granted to the landlord in the previous decision, and for consistency, it is also granted here. R Harvey-Lane 10 March 2026

Tenancy Tribunal case 5380843 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5380843 — Rent arrears

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