What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9031961?

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

How much money was awarded in case 9031961?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9031961?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9031961?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9345477-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9031961?

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

How much money was awarded in case 9031961?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9031961?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9031961?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9345477-UTA_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Te Atatu South, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 9031961 — Unit Titles

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference on 26 July 2023.
On 5 October 2022, the Tribunal made an order for costs.
On 20 October 2022, Mr Wingerden on behalf of the respondent applied for a rehearing on various grounds including: • The respondent only became aware of the commencement of the proceedings claiming alleged arrears in March 2021. • The respondent had not received from the applicant any communication in relation to settling the levies prior to proceedings being filed. • The respondent did not receive any documentation in relation to the application or the applicant’s amendment. • The respondent attended the Tenancy Tribunal hearings that were deferred. 9031961 2 • The Adjudicator did not allow the respondent to present evidence in its defence. The respondent was not given an opportunity to effectively and meaningfully respond to the claim.
The applicant opposes the application for rehearing.
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”.
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. See section 171 Unit Titles Act 2010; section 96(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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. Is there sufficient reason for the ‘out of time’ application to be allowed?
Section 105(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides that an application for a rehearing must be lodged with the Tribunal within 5 working days after the date of the decision, or within such further time as the tribunal may allow.
The application for rehearing was lodged outside the time-frame for such applications.
Mr Wingerden on behalf of the respondent says he was not aware of the Tribunal’s order as he had not received correspondence from the Tribunal.
I note the Tribunal’s order was sent to the address for service provided for the respondent.
While the Tribunal has a discretion to allow an application out of time, it is not required to do so. I am not satisfied there are grounds to allow an application out of time. Nor am I satisfied the respondent has any arguable case.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

The purpose of the Tribunal is to provide for a quick and cost-efficient disposition of matters of no great complexity. Against that background the simple fact that a party disagrees with the decision of the Tribunal is not a ground upon which the Tribunal can grant a rehearing. For a rehearing to be granted it is necessary to 9031961 3 establish that principles of natural justice have not been or would not be complied with if the matter was not reheard.
The grounds submitted in support of the application are not sufficient to require a further hearing or to indicate that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred requiring a rehearing.
I approached the original hearing with an open mind. The parties were given an opportunity to present their respective positions at the hearing. All relevant evidence presented was considered by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal has the discretion to decide the format of the proceedings as to how the proceedings are conducted. On occasion, as in this instance, a party to a hearing may disagree with how they would have liked things to have been run. It is the Adjudicator, not the parties, who has that duty and power. The mere fact that a party has not been permitted to say everything that they want to say about a case or where a hearing has not been conducted the way a party would have liked is not a ground for saying that the party had their rights to be heard breached. I consider I had completed my duty in this matter in accordance with the principles of natural justice and my responsibilities under the Unit Titles Act 2010 and Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Contrary to the respondent’s view, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant served all relevant documentation, including the amended application, to the respondent.
The deferred hearings were adjourned hearings, as such the respondent was not required to attend. This is not a ground for a rehearing.
The respondent is clearly unhappy with the collection process of the levies and associated costs. I believe this was addressed in the order. I do not find there is new evidence presented or made available since the hearing that merits another hearing. The respondent seeks to essentially relitigate the same argument.
Having considered the above and taking into account the need to balance possible injustice to the applicant for a rehearing on the one hand, and potential prejudice and inconvenience to the other party, and the need to put an end to litigation, I decline to grant a rehearing and dismiss the application.
The application for a rehearing fails to establish grounds for a rehearing and therefore it must be dismissed. 9031961 4 Other matters:
The respondent requested a hearing transcript. The respondent is to direct their request to the Registrar.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference on 26 July 2023.
On 5 October 2022, the Tribunal made an order for costs.
On 20 October 2022, Mr Wingerden on behalf of the respondent applied for a rehearing on various grounds including: • The respondent only became aware of the commencement of the proceedings claiming alleged arrears in March 2021. • The respondent had not received from the applicant any communication in relation to settling the levies prior to proceedings being filed. • The respondent did not receive any documentation in relation to the application or the applicant’s amendment. • The respondent attended the Tenancy Tribunal hearings that were deferred. 9031961 2 • The Adjudicator did not allow the respondent to present evidence in its defence. The respondent was not given an opportunity to effectively and meaningfully respond to the claim.
The applicant opposes the application for rehearing.
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”.
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. See section 171 Unit Titles Act 2010; section 96(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
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. Is there sufficient reason for the ‘out of time’ application to be allowed?
Section 105(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides that an application for a rehearing must be lodged with the Tribunal within 5 working days after the date of the decision, or within such further time as the tribunal may allow.
The application for rehearing was lodged outside the time-frame for such applications.
Mr Wingerden on behalf of the respondent says he was not aware of the Tribunal’s order as he had not received correspondence from the Tribunal.
I note the Tribunal’s order was sent to the address for service provided for the respondent.
While the Tribunal has a discretion to allow an application out of time, it is not required to do so. I am not satisfied there are grounds to allow an application out of time. Nor am I satisfied the respondent has any arguable case.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

The purpose of the Tribunal is to provide for a quick and cost-efficient disposition of matters of no great complexity. Against that background the simple fact that a party disagrees with the decision of the Tribunal is not a ground upon which the Tribunal can grant a rehearing. For a rehearing to be granted it is necessary to 9031961 3 establish that principles of natural justice have not been or would not be complied with if the matter was not reheard.
The grounds submitted in support of the application are not sufficient to require a further hearing or to indicate that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred requiring a rehearing.
I approached the original hearing with an open mind. The parties were given an opportunity to present their respective positions at the hearing. All relevant evidence presented was considered by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal has the discretion to decide the format of the proceedings as to how the proceedings are conducted. On occasion, as in this instance, a party to a hearing may disagree with how they would have liked things to have been run. It is the Adjudicator, not the parties, who has that duty and power. The mere fact that a party has not been permitted to say everything that they want to say about a case or where a hearing has not been conducted the way a party would have liked is not a ground for saying that the party had their rights to be heard breached. I consider I had completed my duty in this matter in accordance with the principles of natural justice and my responsibilities under the Unit Titles Act 2010 and Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Contrary to the respondent’s view, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant served all relevant documentation, including the amended application, to the respondent.
The deferred hearings were adjourned hearings, as such the respondent was not required to attend. This is not a ground for a rehearing.
The respondent is clearly unhappy with the collection process of the levies and associated costs. I believe this was addressed in the order. I do not find there is new evidence presented or made available since the hearing that merits another hearing. The respondent seeks to essentially relitigate the same argument.
Having considered the above and taking into account the need to balance possible injustice to the applicant for a rehearing on the one hand, and potential prejudice and inconvenience to the other party, and the need to put an end to litigation, I decline to grant a rehearing and dismiss the application.
The application for a rehearing fails to establish grounds for a rehearing and therefore it must be dismissed. 9031961 4 Other matters:
The respondent requested a hearing transcript. The respondent is to direct their request to the Registrar.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9031961 — Unit Titles in Te Atatu South, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 9031961 — Unit Titles in Te Atatu South, Auckland

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

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