What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5461969 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5461969?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5461969?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5461969?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13880406-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5461969 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5461969?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5461969?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5461969?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13880406-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5461969 — Cleanliness

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
On 7 May 2026 the Tribunal made an order dismissing the landlord’s claim for compensation for decontamination, awarding the bond to the tenants and a declaration regarding the landlord retaining the rent payments.
The landlord applied on 10 June 2026 for a rehearing to clarify the comment made in the Order about extensive cleaning as they relied on advice received about the need to clean the premises after testing showed the presence of methamphetamine.
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”.
To find that grounds for a rehearing exist, the applicant does not need to prove that an actual miscarriage or substantial wrong, only the potential for that, or that it may have occurred prima facie, Ward and Knight-Ward v Taitau [2021] NZDC 975.
In the District Court judgement of Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, His Honour Judge Touhy confirmed that the words “substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice”, set a high standard, stating: “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. ... 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. 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 by way of an application for rehearing, and then again to the District Court against the grant or refusal of the application for rehearing. Not only does this 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.”
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?

For the following reasons the landlord has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing: a. The evidence relied on by the landlord about the level of methamphetamine contamination was available at the original hearing, b. There is no dispute that the levels of methamphetamine contamination in the 10 areas tested ranged from 0.27ug/100cm2 to 11.2ug/100m2. c. Based on the findings of the Gluckman report from 2018 and numerous subsequent Court decisions levels of methamphetamine contamination below 15ug/100cm2 are not considered injurious to heath and do not amount to damage. d. The Tribunal is therefore not able to award compensation for cleaning for levels below 15ug/100cm2, as was the case here.
I consider no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred and the application for rehearing fails.
For the avoidance of doubt I consider, based on the advice they received that the landlord was prudent in having the premises extensively cleaned, despite being unable to recover those costs from the tenant, because they took appropriate steps to mitigate loss for the breach of section 40(2)(b).
Suppression is granted to the tenant pursuant to section 95A to remain consistent with the original Order.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing.
On 7 May 2026 the Tribunal made an order dismissing the landlord’s claim for compensation for decontamination, awarding the bond to the tenants and a declaration regarding the landlord retaining the rent payments.
The landlord applied on 10 June 2026 for a rehearing to clarify the comment made in the Order about extensive cleaning as they relied on advice received about the need to clean the premises after testing showed the presence of methamphetamine.
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”.
To find that grounds for a rehearing exist, the applicant does not need to prove that an actual miscarriage or substantial wrong, only the potential for that, or that it may have occurred prima facie, Ward and Knight-Ward v Taitau [2021] NZDC 975.
In the District Court judgement of Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, His Honour Judge Touhy confirmed that the words “substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice”, set a high standard, stating: “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. ... 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. 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 by way of an application for rehearing, and then again to the District Court against the grant or refusal of the application for rehearing. Not only does this 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.”
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?

For the following reasons the landlord has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing: a. The evidence relied on by the landlord about the level of methamphetamine contamination was available at the original hearing, b. There is no dispute that the levels of methamphetamine contamination in the 10 areas tested ranged from 0.27ug/100cm2 to 11.2ug/100m2. c. Based on the findings of the Gluckman report from 2018 and numerous subsequent Court decisions levels of methamphetamine contamination below 15ug/100cm2 are not considered injurious to heath and do not amount to damage. d. The Tribunal is therefore not able to award compensation for cleaning for levels below 15ug/100cm2, as was the case here.
I consider no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred and the application for rehearing fails.
For the avoidance of doubt I consider, based on the advice they received that the landlord was prudent in having the premises extensively cleaned, despite being unable to recover those costs from the tenant, because they took appropriate steps to mitigate loss for the breach of section 40(2)(b).
Suppression is granted to the tenant pursuant to section 95A to remain consistent with the original Order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5461969 — Cleanliness

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5461969 — Cleanliness

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