What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5539543 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5539543?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5539543?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5539543?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14102961-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5539543 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5539543?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5539543?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5539543?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/14102961-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

95A Hillside Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5539543 — Rent arrears

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 3 Augus 2026 the Tribunal made an order for termination of the tenancy.
He has applied for a rehearing on the grounds that medical issues preventing him from attending the hearing.
He sent to the Tribunal on the day of the hearing. In that email, he said: Hi team, This is just to acknowledge receipt of your email unfortunately I wont be able to attend today's case I will need to request a reschedule for this case as im going thru couple of test today and tomorrow for kidney transplant as im a kidney failure patient please feel free to contact via email if you have any questions or concerns Thanks [The tenant/s] tenant/s]
He did not supply any evidence of his medical condition in that email.
He does not dispute liability for the rent arrears, which stand at $4680, as at today. The landlord has previously offered to find him alternative premises. He says he has a number of boxes of dialysis and has to undergo dialysis every day in the evening. 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: 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
The Tribunal delivers expeditious outcomes. When parties who are duly served with the notice of hearing do not attend, it wastes the resources of the Tribunal, as well as those of the other party.
In this case, the arrears are substantial and the landlord is wanting termination.
The tenant got the notice of hearing in July and ought to have advised the Tribunal at that stage that he had an appointment which conflicted but did not do so.
He did not contact the Tribunal at all until the day of the hearing and even then, he supplied nothing at all corroborating his medical condition or the appointment he claims he had to attend.
The tenant has still supplied no medical evidence at all in support of his condition. He claims he has kidney failure and must have testing and appointments, which are sometimes sudden. He told me today he was up to date with the payment of rent but this is a different story from what the landlord is saying. The landlord has pointed out that a condition of the stay was that the tenant continue to pay rent on time. The landlord says the tenant has not done that.
There is nothing at all before me corroborating or verifying the tenant’s medical condition and the reason why it prevented him from attending a remote hearing, as he has done today.
I consider that nothing has “gone wrong” with the hearing, in terms of the principles I have set out above. There is nothing that can give rise to the requisite possibility of a miscarriage of justice or substantial wrong.
I therefore dismiss the application

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 3 Augus 2026 the Tribunal made an order for termination of the tenancy.
He has applied for a rehearing on the grounds that medical issues preventing him from attending the hearing.
He sent to the Tribunal on the day of the hearing. In that email, he said: Hi team, This is just to acknowledge receipt of your email unfortunately I wont be able to attend today's case I will need to request a reschedule for this case as im going thru couple of test today and tomorrow for kidney transplant as im a kidney failure patient please feel free to contact via email if you have any questions or concerns Thanks [The tenant/s] tenant/s]
He did not supply any evidence of his medical condition in that email.
He does not dispute liability for the rent arrears, which stand at $4680, as at today. The landlord has previously offered to find him alternative premises. He says he has a number of boxes of dialysis and has to undergo dialysis every day in the evening. 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: 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
The Tribunal delivers expeditious outcomes. When parties who are duly served with the notice of hearing do not attend, it wastes the resources of the Tribunal, as well as those of the other party.
In this case, the arrears are substantial and the landlord is wanting termination.
The tenant got the notice of hearing in July and ought to have advised the Tribunal at that stage that he had an appointment which conflicted but did not do so.
He did not contact the Tribunal at all until the day of the hearing and even then, he supplied nothing at all corroborating his medical condition or the appointment he claims he had to attend.
The tenant has still supplied no medical evidence at all in support of his condition. He claims he has kidney failure and must have testing and appointments, which are sometimes sudden. He told me today he was up to date with the payment of rent but this is a different story from what the landlord is saying. The landlord has pointed out that a condition of the stay was that the tenant continue to pay rent on time. The landlord says the tenant has not done that.
There is nothing at all before me corroborating or verifying the tenant’s medical condition and the reason why it prevented him from attending a remote hearing, as he has done today.
I consider that nothing has “gone wrong” with the hearing, in terms of the principles I have set out above. There is nothing that can give rise to the requisite possibility of a miscarriage of justice or substantial wrong.
I therefore dismiss the application

Tenancy Tribunal case 5539543 — Rent arrears at 95A Hillside Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5539543 — Rent arrears at 95A Hillside Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland 2025

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.