What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5450089 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5450089?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5450089?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5450089?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13474730-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5450089 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5450089?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5450089?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5450089?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13474730-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

15 Kahika Grove, Elsdon, Porirua 5022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5450089 — Exemplary damages

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The [Tenant’s] name and identifying details are suppressed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. No interpreter was arranged for the tenant, but the tenant wanted to proceed with her daughter interpreting. I agreed to proceed.
On 18 March 2026 the Tribunal dismissed the Landlord’s application for termination under s 59A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act), together with the associated claims to the bond, compensation, exemplary damages, and reimbursement of the application fee.
The Landlord has since applied for a rehearing. In substance, the Landlord says the Tribunal placed undue emphasis on the need to prove that the premises were uninhabitable and should instead have approached the matter on the basis that the breach was not capable of remedy within a reasonable timeframe. The Landlord also refers to the scale and cost of the remediation work said to be required as proof of uninhabitability.
Section 105(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 empowers the Tribunal to order a rehearing where a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur.
Usually, an applicant for rehearing must show that something went wrong with the Tribunal’s process, for example that they did not receive notice of the hearing or were unable 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, and which could have affected the outcome.
A rehearing is not an appeal. It is not enough for a party to disagree with the Tribunal’s findings, or to wish to advance its case differently after the event.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

I am not satisfied that the Landlord has established any basis for a rehearing.
First, there was no procedural unfairness. The Landlord attended, was heard, and had the opportunity to present evidence and submissions in support of the application.
Secondly, there is no identified new evidence that was unavailable at the time of the hearing. The Landlord refers to the scope and cost of remediation works, but that is not newly discovered evidence in the relevant sense. It is material that was either before the Tribunal in general form or could have been put before the Tribunal at the original hearing had the Landlord wished to rely on it.
Thirdly, the application proceeds on a misunderstanding of the Tribunal’s decision. The original application was brought under s 59A, relying on a 7-day notice. The question for determination under that section was whether, as a result of a breach, the premises were destroyed or so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable. That was the statutory test the Tribunal was required to apply.
The Landlord’s present submission seeks, in substance, to recast the case as one about whether a breach was capable of remedy within a reasonable timeframe. That is a different argument. It is incorrect and misleading for the Landlord to advance this proposition at this late stage. I have explained to the Landlord on two occasions now why their application is misconceived and why their application was dismissed.
Whether another provision of the Act might have been invoked, or whether the Landlord might have framed its case differently, is not a basis for rehearing.
I find no miscarriage of justice in this case. At its highest, it amounts to disagreement with the Tribunal’s assessment that the evidence presented did not establish the statutory threshold required by s 59A. That is not enough.
I also reject the submission that the Tribunal applied the wrong legal test by requiring proof of uninhabitability. Proof of destruction or damage so serious as to render the premises uninhabitable is central to s 59A. It was therefore necessary for the Landlord to establish that element on the evidence before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal’s finding was that the Landlord had not done so. In particular, there was no objective evidence such as expert assessment, testing, or other independent material establishing that the premises were destroyed or so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable at the relevant time. The Landlord’s present dissatisfaction with that conclusion does not amount to a miscarriage of justice.
I had given the Landlord 24 hours from the hearing to file evidence from the attending fire service personnel. They have not done as was requested.
To the extent the Landlord now wishes to rely on broader allegations concerning rubbish, infestation, boarded-up and broken windows, contamination, or the practical difficulty of remediation, these matters were not the basis on which the original application was required to be determined, or were matters that could and should have been properly advanced and evidenced at the original hearing. They do not justify reopening the proceeding.
In short, the Landlord has not shown procedural unfairness, unavailable new evidence, or any substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice. The application instead seeks a second opportunity to argue the merits and to reformulate the original case after the event. That is not the function of a rehearing.
The application for rehearing is therefore dismissed.
Name suppression continued.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The [Tenant’s] name and identifying details are suppressed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. No interpreter was arranged for the tenant, but the tenant wanted to proceed with her daughter interpreting. I agreed to proceed.
On 18 March 2026 the Tribunal dismissed the Landlord’s application for termination under s 59A of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act), together with the associated claims to the bond, compensation, exemplary damages, and reimbursement of the application fee.
The Landlord has since applied for a rehearing. In substance, the Landlord says the Tribunal placed undue emphasis on the need to prove that the premises were uninhabitable and should instead have approached the matter on the basis that the breach was not capable of remedy within a reasonable timeframe. The Landlord also refers to the scale and cost of the remediation work said to be required as proof of uninhabitability.
Section 105(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 empowers the Tribunal to order a rehearing where a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur.
Usually, an applicant for rehearing must show that something went wrong with the Tribunal’s process, for example that they did not receive notice of the hearing or were unable 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, and which could have affected the outcome.
A rehearing is not an appeal. It is not enough for a party to disagree with the Tribunal’s findings, or to wish to advance its case differently after the event.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

I am not satisfied that the Landlord has established any basis for a rehearing.
First, there was no procedural unfairness. The Landlord attended, was heard, and had the opportunity to present evidence and submissions in support of the application.
Secondly, there is no identified new evidence that was unavailable at the time of the hearing. The Landlord refers to the scope and cost of remediation works, but that is not newly discovered evidence in the relevant sense. It is material that was either before the Tribunal in general form or could have been put before the Tribunal at the original hearing had the Landlord wished to rely on it.
Thirdly, the application proceeds on a misunderstanding of the Tribunal’s decision. The original application was brought under s 59A, relying on a 7-day notice. The question for determination under that section was whether, as a result of a breach, the premises were destroyed or so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable. That was the statutory test the Tribunal was required to apply.
The Landlord’s present submission seeks, in substance, to recast the case as one about whether a breach was capable of remedy within a reasonable timeframe. That is a different argument. It is incorrect and misleading for the Landlord to advance this proposition at this late stage. I have explained to the Landlord on two occasions now why their application is misconceived and why their application was dismissed.
Whether another provision of the Act might have been invoked, or whether the Landlord might have framed its case differently, is not a basis for rehearing.
I find no miscarriage of justice in this case. At its highest, it amounts to disagreement with the Tribunal’s assessment that the evidence presented did not establish the statutory threshold required by s 59A. That is not enough.
I also reject the submission that the Tribunal applied the wrong legal test by requiring proof of uninhabitability. Proof of destruction or damage so serious as to render the premises uninhabitable is central to s 59A. It was therefore necessary for the Landlord to establish that element on the evidence before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal’s finding was that the Landlord had not done so. In particular, there was no objective evidence such as expert assessment, testing, or other independent material establishing that the premises were destroyed or so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable at the relevant time. The Landlord’s present dissatisfaction with that conclusion does not amount to a miscarriage of justice.
I had given the Landlord 24 hours from the hearing to file evidence from the attending fire service personnel. They have not done as was requested.
To the extent the Landlord now wishes to rely on broader allegations concerning rubbish, infestation, boarded-up and broken windows, contamination, or the practical difficulty of remediation, these matters were not the basis on which the original application was required to be determined, or were matters that could and should have been properly advanced and evidenced at the original hearing. They do not justify reopening the proceeding.
In short, the Landlord has not shown procedural unfairness, unavailable new evidence, or any substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice. The application instead seeks a second opportunity to argue the merits and to reformulate the original case after the event. That is not the function of a rehearing.
The application for rehearing is therefore dismissed.
Name suppression continued.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5450089 — Exemplary damages at 15 Kahika Grove, Elsdon, Porirua 5022

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5450089 — Exemplary damages at 15 Kahika Grove, Elsdon, Porirua 5022

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions