What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5386547 about?

The tribunal order states: The application for rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5386547?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5386547?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5386547?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13660006-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5386547 about?

The tribunal order states: The application for rehearing is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5386547?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5386547?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5386547?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13660006-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

1846B River Road, Flagstaff, Hamilton 3210 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5386547 — Exemplary damages

Reasons

The landlords and one tenant attended today’s hearing by video conference. The owners attended by telephone.

On 5 March 2026 the Tribunal made an order for the tenants to receive $1,748.69 from the bond and the landlord to receive $1,291.31 from the bond.

On 10 March 2026 the tenants applied for a rehearing on the grounds that the photographs of the purported damages had not been taken in the morning, as the landlords had advised they had been, and therefore the landlords had provided misleading information to the Tribunal.

Further, the tenant stated that questions only arose on 7 November 2026, 4 days after the inspection, which indicated that the owners only went to the property on that date.

The tenant also stated that she knew for sure that there was no damage to bedroom 3 wall and that the blind had not been broken during her tenancy.

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?

For the following reasons the tenants have failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing: (a) There was no procedural irregularity claimed; and (b) At the hearing on 5 March 2026, both parties presented their evidence and a decision was made on that evidence; and (c) The tenants have not produced new evidence that was not reasonably available at the first hearing.

Although a rehearing application hearing is not there to allow parties to go over evidence, I note that the landlords explained that the photographs that were presented at the first hearing may well have been taken in the afternoon of 3 November 2025, (the date of the inspection) because they had photographed the premises both in the morning and afternoon.

I also note that at today’s hearing the owners stated that they had been at the property on 3 November 2025 and the days following, in order to inspect the property themselves.

In the rehearing application, the tenant also requested the Tribunal to revisit the issue of exemplary damages in relation to the withholding of the bond money.

I explained again at today’s hearing that even if the landlords had withheld the bond, this is not an unlawful act as specified in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and so an award of exemplary damages cannot be made. Suppression of tenants’ names

Please note that I have continued the suppression orders for the tenants’ names, in this order. C ter Haar 26 May 2026

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlords and one tenant attended today’s hearing by video conference. The owners attended by telephone.
On 5 March 2026 the Tribunal made an order for the tenants to receive $1,748.69 from the bond and the landlord to receive $1,291.31 from the bond.
On 10 March 2026 the tenants applied for a rehearing on the grounds that the photographs of the purported damages had not been taken in the morning, as the landlords had advised they had been, and therefore the landlords had provided misleading information to the Tribunal.
Further, the tenant stated that questions only arose on 7 November 2026, 4 days after the inspection, which indicated that the owners only went to the property on that date.
The tenant also stated that she knew for sure that there was no damage to bedroom 3 wall and that the blind had not been broken during her tenancy.
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?

For the following reasons the tenants have failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing: (a) There was no procedural irregularity claimed; and (b) At the hearing on 5 March 2026, both parties presented their evidence and a decision was made on that evidence; and (c) The tenants have not produced new evidence that was not reasonably available at the first hearing.
Although a rehearing application hearing is not there to allow parties to go over evidence, I note that the landlords explained that the photographs that were presented at the first hearing may well have been taken in the afternoon of 3 November 2025, (the date of the inspection) because they had photographed the premises both in the morning and afternoon.
I also note that at today’s hearing the owners stated that they had been at the property on 3 November 2025 and the days following, in order to inspect the property themselves.
In the rehearing application, the tenant also requested the Tribunal to revisit the issue of exemplary damages in relation to the withholding of the bond money.
I explained again at today’s hearing that even if the landlords had withheld the bond, this is not an unlawful act as specified in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and so an award of exemplary damages cannot be made. Suppression of tenants’ names
Please note that I have continued the suppression orders for the tenants’ names, in this order. C ter Haar 26 May 2026

Tenancy Tribunal case 5386547 — Exemplary damages at 1846B River Road, Flagstaff, Hamilton 3210

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5386547 — Exemplary damages at 1846B River Road, Flagstaff, Hamilton 3210

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