What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5394481 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5394481?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5394481?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5394481?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13103749-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5394481 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5394481?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5394481?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5394481?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13103749-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

28A Vale Road, St Heliers, Auckland 1071 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5394481 — 14-day notice

Reasons

The hearing was conducted on Microsoft Teams.

Mr El Amanni attended the hearing by video link.

Goode Property NZ Limited did not attend. The hearing proceeded in its absence.

Mr El Amanni asks for the Tribunal’s earlier order in in El Amanni v Anderson [2025] NZTT 5356092 dated 12 November 2025 to be revised. He wants Goode Property NZ Ltd to found liable for the $2,166.00 exemplary damages ordered against the principal landlord, Mr Anderson, and for the Tribunal to consider ordering compensation for his subsequent loss of rent due to losing his flatmate/boarder.

Mr El Amanni has new evidence which he was not aware of at the time of the last hearing. He was not aware at the last hearing that the property management company (called Connolly Gear at that time but later renamed Goode Property) did not consult with Mr Anderson before issuing the termination notice that the Tribunal found retaliatory.

Further, Mr El Amanni says since the Tribunal’s decision he has suffered financial loss due to the retaliatory notice that he ought to be compensated for.

Mr El Amanni wants to argue that the Tribunal’s earlier order would result in a miscarriage of justice or a substantial wrong because the principal landlord, Mr Anderson, was not responsible for the retaliatory notice, Goode Property was.

I do not have the power to address these matters in this application because it is in the form of a new claim. I cannot revise another adjudicator’s decision through a new application because the matter is res judicata, it has already been determined.

The correct procedure to follow in these circumstances is by applying for a rehearing of the Tribunal’s original decision. 1

Mr El Amanni says that he did originally attempt to file an application for rehearing, but Tenancy Services (rightly or wrongly) advised him not to. What he says is plausible because the other file has a note of a telephone call from him two days after the hearing stating: AP Alexander called to discuss a rehearing regarding the retaliatory notice part of his claim as he has new evidence. Referred to MoJ for rehearings.14/11/2025 10:19:49

This application was made on 21 November 2025 which indicates that Mr El Amanni wanted to pursue the matter, but erroneously did not use the rehearing procedure.

In the circumstances, I am granting leave for him to apply for a rehearing out of time within the next 14 days. 2

Once Mr El Amanni applies for a rehearing, the matter may be reconsidered by the original adjudicator who may or may not grant a rehearing, If the adjudicator grants a rehearing, she may rehear and finally decide the matter themselves or decline to do so and refer the matter to another adjudicator for rehearing and decision. 1 Under s 105 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 2 Section 105(2).

Order

The application is dismissed.
[The tenant/s] is granted leave to apply for a rehearing out of time of the Tribunal’s decision in El Amanni v Anderson [2025] NZTT 5356092 dated 12 November 2025. The application must be filed within 14 days.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted on Microsoft Teams.
Mr El Amanni attended the hearing by video link.
Goode Property NZ Limited did not attend. The hearing proceeded in its absence.
Mr El Amanni asks for the Tribunal’s earlier order in in El Amanni v Anderson [2025] NZTT 5356092 dated 12 November 2025 to be revised. He wants Goode Property NZ Ltd to found liable for the $2,166.00 exemplary damages ordered against the principal landlord, Mr Anderson, and for the Tribunal to consider ordering compensation for his subsequent loss of rent due to losing his flatmate/boarder.
Mr El Amanni has new evidence which he was not aware of at the time of the last hearing. He was not aware at the last hearing that the property management company (called Connolly Gear at that time but later renamed Goode Property) did not consult with Mr Anderson before issuing the termination notice that the Tribunal found retaliatory.
Further, Mr El Amanni says since the Tribunal’s decision he has suffered financial loss due to the retaliatory notice that he ought to be compensated for.
Mr El Amanni wants to argue that the Tribunal’s earlier order would result in a miscarriage of justice or a substantial wrong because the principal landlord, Mr Anderson, was not responsible for the retaliatory notice, Goode Property was.
I do not have the power to address these matters in this application because it is in the form of a new claim. I cannot revise another adjudicator’s decision through a new application because the matter is res judicata, it has already been determined.
The correct procedure to follow in these circumstances is by applying for a rehearing of the Tribunal’s original decision. 1
Mr El Amanni says that he did originally attempt to file an application for rehearing, but Tenancy Services (rightly or wrongly) advised him not to. What he says is plausible because the other file has a note of a telephone call from him two days after the hearing stating: AP Alexander called to discuss a rehearing regarding the retaliatory notice part of his claim as he has new evidence. Referred to MoJ for rehearings.14/11/2025 10:19:49
This application was made on 21 November 2025 which indicates that Mr El Amanni wanted to pursue the matter, but erroneously did not use the rehearing procedure.
In the circumstances, I am granting leave for him to apply for a rehearing out of time within the next 14 days. 2
Once Mr El Amanni applies for a rehearing, the matter may be reconsidered by the original adjudicator who may or may not grant a rehearing, If the adjudicator grants a rehearing, she may rehear and finally decide the matter themselves or decline to do so and refer the matter to another adjudicator for rehearing and decision. 1 Under s 105 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 2 Section 105(2).

Tenancy Tribunal case 5394481 — 14-day notice at 28A Vale Road, St Heliers, Auckland 1071

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5394481 — 14-day notice at 28A Vale Road, St Heliers, Auckland 1071

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions