What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5406569 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5406569?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5406569?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5406569?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13384667-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5406569 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5406569?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5406569?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5406569?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13384667-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

34 Heathdale Crescent, Papakura, Papakura 2110 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5406569 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Only the landlord attended today’s hearing to consider the rehearing application filed by the tenant.

The tenant has applied for a rehearing of the order of the Tribunal dated 13 February 2026 on grounds that she was expecting to be phoned into the hearing but the landlord had not provided correct contact details for her to be called.

The tenant is now given an opportunity to be heard on the application, but did not participate in today’s hearing scheduled to consider the rehearing application.

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?

The tenant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

There is nothing in the rehearing application which raises any credible or cogent defence to the possession order made in favour of the landlord due to substantial rent arrears.

The tenant produced no evidence that rent has been paid nor was there any submission/evidence adduced to show that the rent arrears have been cleared or will be paid within a reasonable timeframe.

The tenant says that she is a beneficiary with little means. This fact, by itself, does not absolve a tenant’s liability to pay rent.

Section 117(11) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that where an appeal to the District Court has been filed in relation to an order terminating the tenancy made on the ground of non-payment of rent, a stay of proceedings shall not be granted unless the application for stay is supported by a receipt or other written evidence tending to show that the rent was not in fact in arrear at the date of the hearing before the Tribunal.

I consider those principles relevant and applicable to an application for stay of proceedings and rehearing.

The tenant’s application for rehearing is therefore declined.

Reasons

Only the landlord attended today’s hearing to consider the rehearing application filed by the tenant.

The tenant is now given an opportunity to be heard on the application, but did not participate in today’s hearing scheduled to consider the rehearing application.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

The tenant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

There is nothing in the rehearing application which raises any credible or cogent defence to the possession order made in favour of the landlord due to substantial rent arrears.

The tenant produced no evidence that rent has been paid nor was there any submission/evidence adduced to show that the rent arrears have been cleared or will be paid within a reasonable timeframe.

The tenant says that she is a beneficiary with little means. This fact, by itself, does not absolve a tenant’s liability to pay rent.

I consider those principles relevant and applicable to an application for stay of proceedings and rehearing.

The tenant’s application for rehearing is therefore declined.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5406569 — Rent arrears at 34 Heathdale Crescent, Papakura, Papakura 2110

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5406569 — Rent arrears at 34 Heathdale Crescent, Papakura, Papakura 2110

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