What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5399597 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5399597?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5399597?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5399597?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13648245-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5399597 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5399597?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5399597?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5399597?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13648245-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

21A Belmont Terrace, Milford, Auckland 0620 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5399597 — 14-day notice

Order

The application for a rehearing is dismissed.
The hearing is adjourned to a remote hearing to determine the tenant’s applications.
If either party intends to produce any additional documents at the next hearing, they must email the documents to the Tribunal within 14 days after the date of this order to the Tribunal (email remote.tenancy@justice.govt.nz), and to the other party.
If the respondent also has a claim they want dealt with at the next hearing, they must file their application with Tenancy Services within 14 days of this order and refer to the current application number.
The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s name.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing on 20 May 2026.
The issue for this hearing was consideration as to whether a rehearing should be granted.
On 9 March 2026 the Tribunal made an order finding that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the tenant’s claims in respect of his bond. On 9 March 2026 the landlord applied for a rehearing of the Tribunal order. On 11 March 2026 the application for a rehearing was directed to a hearing before me.
The tenant opposes the application for a rehearing.
Both parties provided oral submissions at the hearing and the landlord has filed further evidence he wishes to be considered. The Law - Rehearings
The relevant law that applies is the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The RTA states the Tribunal has the power to order a rehearing of the whole or any part of the proceedings on the ground that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur. 1
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.
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. 2
The applicant need not establish an actual miscarriage of justice or substantial wrong, only that it may have occurred. However, in the District Court Judgment of Wellington City Council v McMillan, 3 Judge Tuohy held that the statutory language set a high standard, and said: ... 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. [19] 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 1 See s 105 of the RTA. 2 Yogeswaran v Doubletrees Properties Ltd [2021] NZDC 15704. 3 Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50. justice occurring. This implies obvious injustice, not merely an erroneous decision. [20] 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 any decision twice: once to the very Tribunal which made it 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 that 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.”
A rehearing may be granted where there is new evidence that was not reasonably available at the first hearing, if it could have affected the outcome.
In Rae v International Insurance Brokers (Nelson Marlborough) Ltd 4 , the Court of Appeal set out relevant considerations regarding further evidence: 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 parties on the other. They are also designed to reflect the public interest in ensuring, so far as 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. In addition, it will need to pass the tests of credibility and cogency.
The High Court in Angelo v Lehr 5 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.
As noted by the District Court in Loh v Puri 6 : In this Court’s view the Tribunal’s reasons for refusing a rehearing are correct. Rehearing’s are about challenges to processes and procedures and are not about what the adjudicator found or the decisions the adjudicator made. 4 Rae v International Insurance Brokers (Nelson Marlborough) Ltd [1998] 3 NZLR 190. 5 Angelo v Lehr [2022] NZHC 3033 6 Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC 1993 Judge Christiansen Parties’ positions
The landlord seeks a rehearing as he would like new evidence to be considered, he says he did not have opportunity to consider the tenant’s disputed evidence, and he disputes various findings of facts and law.
The landlord says that he found out at the first hearing that he was responsible for proving that his mother, (Ms C) lives at the tenancy premises and that the house belongs to a family trust. He says he was not aware that he had to prove these things.
He says he wants to provide evidence that the tenancy premises is Ms C’s house, and she lives there. He says it was decided it was not her main house and he says he has evidence to show Ms C does live at the premises and does not have her own kitchen and toilet as the tenant said she did.
The landlord has provided a written statement from Ms C, who had given oral evidence at the jurisdiction hearing. Ms C confirms that the tenancy premises is her home, that it is shared with three other occupants, and she has resided at the address for quite some time. Ms C confirms it is her principal or main home and she does not live anywhere else.
The landlord says he was not ready to respond to the evidence from the tenant in respect of the living situation provided at the jurisdiction hearing and did not get an opportunity to prepare.
The landlord seeks a rehearing because he disputes evidence of the tenant in respect of the claim he is running a business.
The landlord refers to the documented agreement he had with the tenant, which he says shows this is not a residential tenancy under the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, which he says was not properly considered.
The landlord also says the home is in a Family Trust. The landlord said he had a copy of the Trust deed but only provided part of the Trust Deed in evidence for this hearing. The landlord said he is the only trustee and Ms C is a beneficiary.
The landlord provided further reasons as to why I should find that the premises is principally Ms C’s place of residence. He says he has looked into the law and effectively the decision is wrong in law. As an example, he said the law does not require Ms C and other occupants to share the premises at the same time for the s 5 (n) RTA exemption to apply.
The tenant opposes a rehearing. He says his evidence shows that the landlord is running a business. He seeks to progress matters through the Tribunal.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the reasons that follow, I am not satisfied that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice may have occurred.
The interests of justice require parties to put their best case forward at the hearing and I consider both parties had ample opportunity to do this.
There is no indication that any relevant or material evidence has been discovered that was not available at the time of hearing. The notice of hearing provides information about the hearing, including evidence and witnesses. The landlord had notice by way of the notice of hearing that witnesses may give evidence. He had also been in contact with Tenancy Services; therefore he was aware of and had received information via that service about the issues for consideration at the hearing.
I consider that the additional witness statements now provided are not fresh evidence and could have been reasonably available at the time of the first hearing. The landlord had Ms C give evidence at the first hearing and could have called additional witnesses as well but did not.
The landlord has provided no reasonable explanation for why he did not call the other witnesses to give evidence at the first hearing. It appears the landlord did not anticipate the Tribunal would make the decision it did. In light of the decision made, the landlord is now seeking a second opportunity to better present his case. This is not the purpose of a rehearing. Further there are no exceptional or compelling grounds to admit the evidence of the witnesses after the fact.
The hearing was on 26 February 2026. The notice of hearing was served on the parties on 10 December 2025. On 17 February 2026 the landlord filed evidence in respect of the issue of jurisdiction. He was clearly on notice that that issue would be considered at the hearing because he was the one who raised it prior to the hearing and the onus was on him to prove that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction. I consider he had sufficient time to consider that matter and seek legal advice, which to date he has not done so.
Much of the landlord’s grounds for a rehearing relate to an insistence that the premises is a home Ms C shared with the other occupants. The landlord seems to not appreciate that I have found that Ms C did live in the premises.
Further, I also consider the new witness statements as well as the landlord’s emphasis on the booking agreement (with house rules) further confirms my findings in respect of jurisdiction - that the property was not principally being used as a place of residence for Ms C but rather that her use of the premises was equal (or lesser) to that of the other tenants. The number of tenants at any one time, the length of their stay and the written terms the landlord referred to at this hearing, in my view confirm that this is not small scale or limited letting but appears largely commercial.
In my view the landlord had a fair opportunity to present his case in respect of jurisdiction and he has not proven that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to the required standard.
I consider the issues raised by the landlord do not relate to a procedural issue, but rather a challenge to the Tribunal findings, which he now seeks to relitigate with additional evidence that could have been provided for the hearing and would, in my view, not alter the outcome in any event.
The landlord has not raised any complaint about the improper admission of evidence, only that he disputes the oral evidence provided. Further, he has not raised any complaint about misconduct by any person or party, but again only that he disputes the tenant’s oral evidence, the disputes of which I do not consider are material to the outcome in any event.
The landlord’s complaints that the Tribunal was mistaken or wrong in its findings of facts or its application of the law or its weighting of the evidence presented, or that the Tribunal did not adequately consider the evidence relating to the terms of the tenant’s occupation of the premises are not grounds for a rehearing but are instead grounds for an appeal.
The fact that the landlord disagrees with the decision in respect of jurisdiction does not amount to a potential miscarriage of justice.
Further, I consider any clarification in respect of the ownership of the premises by a family trust does not alter the findings made in the previous order.
In conclusion, I have considered all the grounds advanced by the landlord for why a rehearing should be granted.
My assessment is that it has not been established to the balance of probabilities that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred.
The application for a rehearing is dismissed. Suppression
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case. 7
The Tribunal may, on the application of any party to proceedings or on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order that all or part of the evidence given or the name or any identifying 7 RTA, s 95A (1). particulars of any witness or party not be published and may attach any conditions to that order that the Tribunal considers appropriate. 8
The landlord applied for name suppression, however as he is unsuccessful in seeking a rehearing and because I consider the public interest in publication outweighs the landlord’s interests in privacy, name suppression for the landlord is declined.
The tenant applied for name suppression. The tenant has been successful in respect of the application for a rehearing, he is granted name suppression.
The landlord’s mother is referred to as Ms C only in this decision as I have previously ordered suppression of her name, and that order continues to apply.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5399597 — 14-day notice at 21A Belmont Terrace, Milford, Auckland 0620

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5399597 — 14-day notice at 21A Belmont Terrace, Milford, Auckland 0620

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

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions