What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5404848 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5404848?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5404848?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5404848?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13181945-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5404848 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.

How much money was awarded in case 5404848?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5404848?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5404848?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13181945-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5404848 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by video represented by Ms Sun, the property manager. The tenant did not join the hearing by video or telephone. I am satisfied that the tenant received notice of the heraing and did not attend.
On 20 December 2025 the Tribunal made an order reducing the fixed term tenancy so that it ended at 11.59pm on Monday 29 December 2025. An order for arrears was also made.
On 23 December 2025, the landlord applied for a rehearing in relation to the order reducing the fixed term tenancy on the grounds that new evidence was available that could change the outcome of the hearing.
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.
The principles that apply to a claim that there is new evidence which might change the earlier Tribunal decision are well settled. The High Court in A v Bottrill 1 stated: [28] The principles governing the grant of new trials on the basis of the discovery of material evidence since trial were stated by Denning LJ in Ladd v Marshall [1954] 3 All ER 745 :- "[F]irst, it must be shown that the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at the trial: second, the evidence must be such that, if given, it would probably have an important influence on the result of the case, although it need not be decisive: third, the evidence must be such as is presumably to be believed, or in other words, it must be apparently credible, although it need not be incontrovertible." These principles have been accepted by the Court of Appeal as representing the law in New Zealand...

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

In determining the tenant’s application for reduction of the fixed term tenancy under s66 RTA, the Tribunal was required to assess whether the severe hardship which the tenant would suffer if the term of the tenancy were not reduced would be greater than the hardship which the landlord would suffer if the term were reduced. In paragraphs 13 and 14 of the original decision, I stated as follows: [13] Ms Sun was unable to provide detailed information about the owners and the hardship they might suffer if the tenancy was terminated. She says that they are a professional couple, who both work full-time and have a young family. They own a residential home and this investment property with mortgage repayments to meet. Ms Sun says she disagrees that the landlords would be “better off” than the tenant but there is scant evidence to support that submission. The landlord has known about the tenants application under s66, since it was served on them on 9 December 2025. Therefore I would have expected them to provide more detailed evidence about their 1 A v Bottrill CP No 310/96, Auckland High Court, 28 March 2000 at [28] circumstances if they wished to establish that they would suffer greater hardship under s66.
Based on the information I have been provided with, I find that the owners are likely to be in a far more financially secure position than the tenant. While the potential loss of rental will cause some impact and possible hardship, they are both employed and appear to have substantial assets to back themselves compared with the tenant. Therefore, I find that the tenant will suffer greater hardship if the tenancy term is not reduced then the landlords would suffer if the tenancy term were reduced.
Ms Sun argued that the new evidence had become available regarding the property owners’ financial circumstances. She stated that at the time of the original hearing, she was not aware of this detailed financial information and was therefore unable to present it for the hearing. The information she did provide was based on assumptions.
After the Tribunal order was issued, the property owners provided the property manager with a statement about their financial circumstances which was attached to the rehearing application. They highlighted that, contrary to what the property manager had indicated, they do not own a family home but are renting. This property (let to the tenant) is the only property they own and is subject to a mortgage. They also set out some general information as follows: a. Even taking into account the weekly rent of $520 received for the premises, they must top up their mortgage by $130/week; b. One owner works full time and one owner works part time. However they did not disclose their salaries; c. They have substantial outgoings, not disclosed; d. They have two young children; e. They disclosed their weekly rent payable for their home in Auckland.
During the hearing to consider the rehearing application today, Ms Sun contacted them for further information and was told only one owner is working full time as an accountant and the other is a part-time contractor that has not worked since November 2025. Some broad information about earnings and outgoings was relayed through the property manager but the evidence was lacking in detail.
Ms Sun argues that the above information is new evidence not reasonably available at the hearing, and it should be considered by the Tribunal because it may alter the Tribunal’s decision to reduce the fixed term tenancy.
While I accept that the property manager did not know about the owners’ financial circumstances at the original hearing, she knew that the tenant was bringing an application under s66. The wording of that section makes clear that a comparison of hardship between the landlord and the tenant must be considered. Part of a professional property manager’s role is to attend Tribunal hearings as representative. In doing so, the Tribunal reasonably expects that the property manager is able to present all relevant information and evidence regarding claims under the RTA. In this case, I consider that it would have been reasonable to expect the property managers to ask the owners, in advance of the hearing, about the hardship they would suffer if the fixed term tenancy was reduced so that they could adequately present that information to the Tribunal.
In summary, I find that the landlord has not shown that the evidence they wish the Tribunal to consider at a rehearing could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at the hearing. As such it fails the first test for such applications.
Even if I am wrong, I am not satisfied that the evidence provided would have an important influence likely to change the outcome of the case. While the loss of rental would cause some impact and possible hardship, the landlords are still likely in a better position compared with the tenant.
For the reasons given, the application for a rehearing is dismissed.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by video represented by Ms Sun, the property manager. The tenant did not join the hearing by video or telephone. I am satisfied that the tenant received notice of the heraing and did not attend.
On 20 December 2025 the Tribunal made an order reducing the fixed term tenancy so that it ended at 11.59pm on Monday 29 December 2025. An order for arrears was also made.
On 23 December 2025, the landlord applied for a rehearing in relation to the order reducing the fixed term tenancy on the grounds that new evidence was available that could change the outcome of the hearing.
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.
The principles that apply to a claim that there is new evidence which might change the earlier Tribunal decision are well settled. The High Court in A v Bottrill 1 stated: [28] The principles governing the grant of new trials on the basis of the discovery of material evidence since trial were stated by Denning LJ in Ladd v Marshall [1954] 3 All ER 745 :- "[F]irst, it must be shown that the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at the trial: second, the evidence must be such that, if given, it would probably have an important influence on the result of the case, although it need not be decisive: third, the evidence must be such as is presumably to be believed, or in other words, it must be apparently credible, although it need not be incontrovertible." These principles have been accepted by the Court of Appeal as representing the law in New Zealand...

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

In determining the tenant’s application for reduction of the fixed term tenancy under s66 RTA, the Tribunal was required to assess whether the severe hardship which the tenant would suffer if the term of the tenancy were not reduced would be greater than the hardship which the landlord would suffer if the term were reduced. In paragraphs 13 and 14 of the original decision, I stated as follows: [13] Ms Sun was unable to provide detailed information about the owners and the hardship they might suffer if the tenancy was terminated. She says that they are a professional couple, who both work full-time and have a young family. They own a residential home and this investment property with mortgage repayments to meet. Ms Sun says she disagrees that the landlords would be “better off” than the tenant but there is scant evidence to support that submission. The landlord has known about the tenants application under s66, since it was served on them on 9 December 2025. Therefore I would have expected them to provide more detailed evidence about their 1 A v Bottrill CP No 310/96, Auckland High Court, 28 March 2000 at [28] circumstances if they wished to establish that they would suffer greater hardship under s66.
Based on the information I have been provided with, I find that the owners are likely to be in a far more financially secure position than the tenant. While the potential loss of rental will cause some impact and possible hardship, they are both employed and appear to have substantial assets to back themselves compared with the tenant. Therefore, I find that the tenant will suffer greater hardship if the tenancy term is not reduced then the landlords would suffer if the tenancy term were reduced.
Ms Sun argued that the new evidence had become available regarding the property owners’ financial circumstances. She stated that at the time of the original hearing, she was not aware of this detailed financial information and was therefore unable to present it for the hearing. The information she did provide was based on assumptions.
After the Tribunal order was issued, the property owners provided the property manager with a statement about their financial circumstances which was attached to the rehearing application. They highlighted that, contrary to what the property manager had indicated, they do not own a family home but are renting. This property (let to the tenant) is the only property they own and is subject to a mortgage. They also set out some general information as follows: a. Even taking into account the weekly rent of $520 received for the premises, they must top up their mortgage by $130/week; b. One owner works full time and one owner works part time. However they did not disclose their salaries; c. They have substantial outgoings, not disclosed; d. They have two young children; e. They disclosed their weekly rent payable for their home in Auckland.
During the hearing to consider the rehearing application today, Ms Sun contacted them for further information and was told only one owner is working full time as an accountant and the other is a part-time contractor that has not worked since November 2025. Some broad information about earnings and outgoings was relayed through the property manager but the evidence was lacking in detail.
Ms Sun argues that the above information is new evidence not reasonably available at the hearing, and it should be considered by the Tribunal because it may alter the Tribunal’s decision to reduce the fixed term tenancy.
While I accept that the property manager did not know about the owners’ financial circumstances at the original hearing, she knew that the tenant was bringing an application under s66. The wording of that section makes clear that a comparison of hardship between the landlord and the tenant must be considered. Part of a professional property manager’s role is to attend Tribunal hearings as representative. In doing so, the Tribunal reasonably expects that the property manager is able to present all relevant information and evidence regarding claims under the RTA. In this case, I consider that it would have been reasonable to expect the property managers to ask the owners, in advance of the hearing, about the hardship they would suffer if the fixed term tenancy was reduced so that they could adequately present that information to the Tribunal.
In summary, I find that the landlord has not shown that the evidence they wish the Tribunal to consider at a rehearing could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at the hearing. As such it fails the first test for such applications.
Even if I am wrong, I am not satisfied that the evidence provided would have an important influence likely to change the outcome of the case. While the loss of rental would cause some impact and possible hardship, the landlords are still likely in a better position compared with the tenant.
For the reasons given, the application for a rehearing is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5404848 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5404848 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions