What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5403028 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5403028?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5403028?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5403028?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13416439-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5403028 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5403028?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5403028?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5403028?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13416439-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

206 Kohumaru Road, Mangonui, RD 1, Mangonui 0494 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5403028 — Rent arrears

Order

The application for a rehearing is dismissed.
The stay of proceedings in respect of the order dated 17 February 2026 is lifted.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing in respect of the tenant’s application for a rehearing.
On 7 January 2026 the Tribunal made a conditional termination order by consent.
On 17 February 2026 the tenant applied for a rehearing and an application for a rehearing out of time.
The tenant said: a. She is part trustee of the property, b. There is an issue regarding will /estate of a previous owner, c. She has no where to go.
The issue I must consider is whether a rehearing should be granted. 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 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.
As noted by the District Court in Loh v Puri 4 : 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 4 Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC 1993 Judge Christiansen 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.

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. 5
The parties have contracted into the RTA; therefore, I do not need to consider whether the tenancy is excluded from the RTA (by way of the tenant saying she is “part trustee” of the tenancy address. No evidence of this was provided in any event.
The tenant said she agreed to the terms of the mediated order and said she was unable to pay the rent arrears at the time of her first breach of the order. She has continued to live in the premises and pay rent but not pay the arrears. The tenant was unable to identify any point which would amount to a substantial miscarriage of justice.
The tenant has not suggested there has been anything procedural in nature that would warrant a rehearing, nor that there was there the improper admission or rejection of evidence or misconduct that would support a rehearing. The tenant has provided insufficient grounds for the application to be considered outside of the time limit.
Accordingly, the application for a rehearing is dismissed and the stay of proceedings is lifted.
On my enquiry, neither party sought name suppression.

Order

The application for a rehearing is dismissed.
The stay of proceedings in respect of the order dated 17 February 2026 is lifted.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing in respect of the tenant’s application for a rehearing.
On 7 January 2026 the Tribunal made a conditional termination order by consent.
On 17 February 2026 the tenant applied for a rehearing and an application for a rehearing out of time.
The tenant said: a. She is part trustee of the property, b. There is an issue regarding will /estate of a previous owner, c. She has no where to go.
The issue I must consider is whether a rehearing should be granted. 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 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.
As noted by the District Court in Loh v Puri 4 : 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 4 Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC 1993 Judge Christiansen 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.

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. 5
The parties have contracted into the RTA; therefore, I do not need to consider whether the tenancy is excluded from the RTA (by way of the tenant saying she is “part trustee” of the tenancy address. No evidence of this was provided in any event.
The tenant said she agreed to the terms of the mediated order and said she was unable to pay the rent arrears at the time of her first breach of the order. She has continued to live in the premises and pay rent but not pay the arrears. The tenant was unable to identify any point which would amount to a substantial miscarriage of justice.
The tenant has not suggested there has been anything procedural in nature that would warrant a rehearing, nor that there was there the improper admission or rejection of evidence or misconduct that would support a rehearing. The tenant has provided insufficient grounds for the application to be considered outside of the time limit.
Accordingly, the application for a rehearing is dismissed and the stay of proceedings is lifted.
On my enquiry, neither party sought name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5403028 — Rent arrears at 206 Kohumaru Road, Mangonui, RD 1, Mangonui 0494

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5403028 — Rent arrears at 206 Kohumaru Road, Mangonui, RD 1, Mangonui 0494

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions