What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5417048 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5417048?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5417048?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5417048?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13112453-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5417048 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5417048?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5417048?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5417048?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13112453-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

7 Hodgens Place, West End, Palmerston North 4412 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5417048 — 14-day notice

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The stay on termination of the tenancy is lifted.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by telephone.
The tenant attended the hearing in person.
On 15 January 2026 the Tribunal made an order for termination of the tenancy under section 55(1)(c)(v) Residential Tenancy Act 1986 (“RTA”) because the tenant assaulted a neighbour.
On 20 January 2026 the tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that: “new and relevant information has come to light since the original hearing which was not reasonably available to me at the time and which I believe is important to the matters considered in the decision. At the time of the hearing I presented my case to the best of my ability with the information available to me. Since then further information has emerged which I feel should be properly considered, as it may have affected the Tribunal’s understanding of the circumstances and the outcome of the decision.”
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”.
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.
The tenant advised that the new evidence was: a. B, the victim of the violence, had been at the tenant’s house many times since the last hearing on 14 January 2026 supported by many videos of this happening. b. B had been arrested for breaching her bail conditions in relation to an alleged assault by B of the tenant’s child. c. A statement the tenant made to the police about the alleged assault dated 11 January 2026 and a police acknowledgement of complaint form. d. A satisfactory tenant reference from the landlord dated 3 February 2026. e. A rent statement showing that the tenant always paid her rent. f. Statements from neighbours confirming the difficulties the tenant has encountered with B, and that the tenant is a good tenant and neighbour. g. Notifications made by the tenant to the landlord about B’s behaviour since the date of the Order.
The tenant explained that this evidence was not available at the time of the hearing because the events happened after the hearing. Decision
The tenant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing for the following reasons: a. The tenancy was terminated because the landlord proved on the balance of probabilities that the tenant assaulted B. This was recorded on video. b. There is nothing in the tenant’s new evidence that challenges the Tribunal’s finding that she assaulted B. This was the ground for the termination. c. The evidence which the tenant wishes to introduce relates to B’s behaviour. The Tribunal was aware of the issues the tenant faced with B. The tenant had produced numerous videos of it, together with supporting statements. d. As the Tribunal noted in paragraph 14(b) of its Order: “While the Tribunal accepts that the tenant was provoked by the repeated behaviours of B, this is a reason, but not an excuse, for such an assault. It is not for a tenant to resort to physical violence to deal with a troublesome neighbour. The video does not show that the tenant was threatened by the tenant. In fact, the tenant was sitting on the ground in obvious distress which the tenant’s assault did nothing to alleviate. The landlord may need to address B’s behaviour, but that it was not the subject of this hearing.” e. The new evidence continues to document B’s behaviour. However, B’s behaviour was not the subject of the landlord’s application. It was the assault by the tenant on B. The new evidence does nothing to disprove that fact or prove that the Tribunal was wrong in finding that the tenant assaulted B. Nor does the evidence persuade the Tribunal that it was wrong in not exercising its discretion under section 55(2) RTA. f. The admission of new evidence of events that occurred after a hearing would allow a potentially unlimited amount of further evidence. One of the purposes of a hearing is to bring finality to disputes between landlord and tenant expeditiously. If the Tribunal were to accept evidence of events that occurred after a hearing, the further evidence for rehearing could be infinite. That is one of the reasons why the grounds for the admission of fresh evidence is necessarily restrictive and exceptional. g. In this situation, the events are a continuation of B’s behaviour which the Tribunal considered at the hearing. The evidence is not therefore fresh. The circumstances are not exceptional and nor is the evidence cogent or compelling. It was not relevant to the Tribunal’s decision original decision and remains so.
In summary, the tenant has not persuaded the Tribunal that there has been a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice. The evidence which the tenant wishes the Tribunal to consider does not affect the basis of its decision. It is simply more of the evidence which the tenant provided before the hearing.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by telephone.

The tenant attended the hearing in person.

On 15 January 2026 the Tribunal made an order for termination of the tenancy under section 55(1)(c)(v) Residential Tenancy Act 1986 (“RTA”) because the tenant assaulted a neighbour.

On 20 January 2026 the tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that: “new and relevant information has come to light since the original hearing which was not reasonably available to me at the time and which I believe is important to the matters considered in the decision. At the time of the hearing I presented my case to the best of my ability with the information available to me. Since then further information has emerged which I feel should be properly considered, as it may have affected the Tribunal’s understanding of the circumstances and the outcome of the decision.”

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”.

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.

The tenant advised that the new evidence was: a. B, the victim of the violence, had been at the tenant’s house many times since the last hearing on 14 January 2026 supported by many videos of this happening. b. B had been arrested for breaching her bail conditions in relation to an alleged assault by B of the tenant’s child. c. A statement the tenant made to the police about the alleged assault dated 11 January 2026 and a police acknowledgement of complaint form. d. A satisfactory tenant reference from the landlord dated 3 February 2026. e. A rent statement showing that the tenant always paid her rent. f. Statements from neighbours confirming the difficulties the tenant has encountered with B, and that the tenant is a good tenant and neighbour. g. Notifications made by the tenant to the landlord about B’s behaviour since the date of the Order.

The tenant explained that this evidence was not available at the time of the hearing because the events happened after the hearing. Decision

The tenant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing for the following reasons: a. The tenancy was terminated because the landlord proved on the balance of probabilities that the tenant assaulted B. This was recorded on video. b. There is nothing in the tenant’s new evidence that challenges the Tribunal’s finding that she assaulted B. This was the ground for the termination. c. The evidence which the tenant wishes to introduce relates to B’s behaviour. The Tribunal was aware of the issues the tenant faced with B. The tenant had produced numerous videos of it, together with supporting statements. d. As the Tribunal noted in paragraph 14(b) of its Order: “While the Tribunal accepts that the tenant was provoked by the repeated behaviours of B, this is a reason, but not an excuse, for such an assault. It is not for a tenant to resort to physical violence to deal with a troublesome neighbour. The video does not show that the tenant was threatened by the tenant. In fact, the tenant was sitting on the ground in obvious distress which the tenant’s assault did nothing to alleviate. The landlord may need to address B’s behaviour, but that it was not the subject of this hearing.” e. The new evidence continues to document B’s behaviour. However, B’s behaviour was not the subject of the landlord’s application. It was the assault by the tenant on B. The new evidence does nothing to disprove that fact or prove that the Tribunal was wrong in finding that the tenant assaulted B. Nor does the evidence persuade the Tribunal that it was wrong in not exercising its discretion under section 55(2) RTA. f. The admission of new evidence of events that occurred after a hearing would allow a potentially unlimited amount of further evidence. One of the purposes of a hearing is to bring finality to disputes between landlord and tenant expeditiously. If the Tribunal were to accept evidence of events that occurred after a hearing, the further evidence for rehearing could be infinite. That is one of the reasons why the grounds for the admission of fresh evidence is necessarily restrictive and exceptional. g. In this situation, the events are a continuation of B’s behaviour which the Tribunal considered at the hearing. The evidence is not therefore fresh. The circumstances are not exceptional and nor is the evidence cogent or compelling. It was not relevant to the Tribunal’s decision original decision and remains so.

In summary, the tenant has not persuaded the Tribunal that there has been a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice. The evidence which the tenant wishes the Tribunal to consider does not affect the basis of its decision. It is simply more of the evidence which the tenant provided before the hearing.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5417048 — 14-day notice at 7 Hodgens Place, West End, Palmerston North 4412

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5417048 — 14-day notice at 7 Hodgens Place, West End, Palmerston North 4412

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions