Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5426115 — Unit Titles
Decided 29 Jun 2026 · Published 29 Jun 2026 · Application 5426115
- Unit Titles
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Adjudicator
D Watson
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the [Landlord’s] name and identifying details.
- The Application for a rehearing is dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing. As occurred at the prior hearing, Mr Olliver had representation.
- On 30 March 2026, I made an order that: a. Gregory Martin Olliver must pay Crockers Property Management Limited as agent for Xiang Zhao $14,844.49 immediately, and b. The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $9,400.00 (BN-00064363) to Crockers Property Management Limited as agent for Xiang Zhao immediately.
- The tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds he considers the bond may be money available to his creditors. He is currently negotiating the terms of an informal scheme to clear his creditors.
- During the hearing, the tenant accepted there did not need to be a rehearing and proposed that he will raise this matter with the landlord when negotiating the final terms of the agreement with creditors. The landlord is of course a creditor of Mr Olliver as well.
- The tenant was unable to point me to anything which went wrong with the hearing itself. Relevant Law
- Decisions issued by the Tribunal are binding on both parties, however the RTA, which provides the procedural requirements for the operation of the Tenancy Tribunal acting within its Unit Titles Act jurisdiction, allows either party to apply for a rehearing. In particular, s 105 of the RTA relates to rehearings. Subsection 1 confirms that: The Tribunal shall in all proceedings have 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.
- 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 all over again to another adjudicator.
- 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 [2003] DCR 50, Judge Tuohy held that the statutory language set a high standard, and that: [18] ... 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 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.
- As noted by Judge Christiansen in the District Court appeal of Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC 1993: In this Court’s view the Tribunal’s reasons for refusing a rehearing are correct. Rehearings are about challenges to processes and procedures and are not about what the adjudicator found or the decisions the adjudicator made.
- Added to the foregoing law, it is important to observe that the Tenancy Tribunal is required to deliver expeditious outcomes. Section 85 of the RTA provides: 12. 85Manner in which jurisdiction is to be exercised (1)Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any regulations made under this Act, the Tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants of residential premises to which this Act applies. (2)The Tribunal shall determine each dispute according to the general principles of the law relating to the matter and the substantial merits and justice of the case, but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. Analysis
- It is in the public interest that the Tribunal delivers expeditious outcomes.
- The opportunity to make all points relevant to a case arises on the day of the hearing, not afterwards.
- I cannot allow a rehearing on the basis the tenant omitted to make a point he considers is in his favour but did not make at the hearing.
- In any event, it is clear from the scheme of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 that the bond is security for the rent. The tenant is not entitled to the return of it at the end of the tenancy if there is rent and other moneys owing to a landlord. Any claim by the Official Assignee (assuming Mr Olliver had been bankrupted) would need to be subject to the landlord’s claim.
- For those reasons, I decline the application.
- The landlord has been successful and is entitled to name suppression.