What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5384828 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 5384828?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5384828?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5384828?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13546821-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5384828 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 5384828?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5384828?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5384828?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13546821-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5384828 — Healthy homes

Reasons

On 3 March 2026 the Tribunal made an order dismissing the tenants’ healthy homes breach applications, but finding that the landlord had failed to follow its own break lease process, and due to that failure the tenants had unnecessarily paid rent. I ordered that the landlord was to reimburse the rent the tenants paid between 14 October 2025 and 5 February 2026.

The landlord has applied for a rehearing. In my order I referred to what I understood to be the landlord’s failure to provide evidence relating to healthy homes breaches, and to the assignment of the lease. It eventuated that the landlord had provided the evidence in the timeframe set out in the adjournment order. However, due to a staff absence the registry did not pass on the evidence to me until after the order had been issued.

The landlord seeks a rehearing on the basis that his healthy homes evidence was not considered, and that the order considers the application to end the term of the tenancy early, which was moot as at the date of the order the tenancy had been assigned.

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.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

The evidence provided by the landlord related entirety to the healthy homes breaches. However, even in the absence of that evidence I found that the healthy homes breaches were not made out by the tenants. The findings I did make related entirely to the landlord’s failure to follow its own break lease process and the loss that caused the tenants. The evidence provided by the landlord had no bearing on this decision. It no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice arises in this instance.

The issue of the reduction of the lease was considered, despite this issue having been made moot, in fact, by the assignment of the lease. Landlord argued that this causes problems with the lease with the new tenants to lease was assigned. I disagree. The assignment of the lease it occurred prior to the order, and therefore the order was of no effect vis-à-vis the rights between the landlord and the new tenants. No substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice arises from these facts. The rehearing application is dismissed.

Order

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

Reasons

On 3 March 2026 the Tribunal made an order dismissing the tenants’ healthy homes breach applications, but finding that the landlord had failed to follow its own break lease process, and due to that failure the tenants had unnecessarily paid rent. I ordered that the landlord was to reimburse the rent the tenants paid between 14 October 2025 and 5 February 2026.
The landlord has applied for a rehearing. In my order I referred to what I understood to be the landlord’s failure to provide evidence relating to healthy homes breaches, and to the assignment of the lease. It eventuated that the landlord had provided the evidence in the timeframe set out in the adjournment order. However, due to a staff absence the registry did not pass on the evidence to me until after the order had been issued.
The landlord seeks a rehearing on the basis that his healthy homes evidence was not considered, and that the order considers the application to end the term of the tenancy early, which was moot as at the date of the order the tenancy had been assigned.
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.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

The evidence provided by the landlord related entirety to the healthy homes breaches. However, even in the absence of that evidence I found that the healthy homes breaches were not made out by the tenants. The findings I did make related entirely to the landlord’s failure to follow its own break lease process and the loss that caused the tenants. The evidence provided by the landlord had no bearing on this decision. It no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice arises in this instance.
The issue of the reduction of the lease was considered, despite this issue having been made moot, in fact, by the assignment of the lease. Landlord argued that this causes problems with the lease with the new tenants to lease was assigned. I disagree. The assignment of the lease it occurred prior to the order, and therefore the order was of no effect vis-à-vis the rights between the landlord and the new tenants. No substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice arises from these facts. The rehearing application is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5384828 — Healthy homes

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5384828 — Healthy homes

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