What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9043804?

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

How much money was awarded in case 9043804?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9043804?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9043804?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12287262-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9043804?

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

How much money was awarded in case 9043804?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9043804?

The primary dispute was Leaks. Related themes: Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9043804?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12287262-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Thorndon, Wellington Tenancy Tribunal Case 9043804 — Leaks

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application for rehearing filed by the Applicant. The application was considered on the papers.

BACKGROUND

In terms of this rehearing request, the background can be summarised succinctly as follows:
The applicant, Baubles Limited, is an owner of a unit in a unit titled complex, comprising a number of townhouses. A dispute arose between the Applicant and the Body Corporate in relation to asbestos removal, and compensation around water leaks. An application was filed with the Tribunal in relation to those matters.
The parties attempted to resolve the matter at mediation, but that was not successful, so the matter proceeded to a hearing in the Tribunal. Following a hearing, a decision was issued dated 9 July 2025.
The Applicant then applied for a rehearing. In directions issued on 19 July 2025, I set timetabling for submissions to be filed concerning the question of whether the Tribunal should approve a rehearing. This decision follows that process. APPLICANT’S POSITION
The Applicant submits that a rehearing should be granted for these reasons: a. The Body Corporate filed documentation at the hearing which the Applicant did not have time to consider. b. It is not correct that an asbestos clearance certificate was issued or easily obtainable, with reference to an email to the applicant from February 2020. RESPONDENT’S POSITION
The Respondent opposes the rehearing request. In short, the Body Corporate consider that the information it handed up at the hearing was not new information (the Applicant had that information already), and further that any obligation for a clearance certificate is on the unit owner.

RELEVANT LAW

Section 105 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 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.
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 District 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.”
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. In Jemma Trust v Rutherford (DC North Shore, CIV-2009-044-2056, 11 December 1999), the District Court quoted an extract from the Court of Appeal outlining the relevant considerations: The principles upon which further evidence is admitted are designed to balance the interests of the person seeking to adduce such evidence on the one hand with the interests of the opposite party is on the other. They are also designed to reflect the public interest in ensuring, so far as is possible, that parties put up their best case at trial. Any other approach would be very wasteful of public resources. The conventional requirements are that the further evidence must be fresh, it must be credible and it must be cogent. Evidence is not regarded as fresh if it could with reasonable diligence have been produced at the trial....While the absence of freshness is not an absolute disqualification, the criteria for admission in such circumstances must be very strict. In our view, when the evidence is not fresh it should not be admitted unless the circumstances are exceptional and the grounds compelling.
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.

ANALYSIS

I have set out the relevant law that applies to rehearings above. In short, re- hearings are a safety measure should something have gone wrong with the hearing, normally on a procedural basis, in which case a rehearing can be approved so that the matter then returns to the Tribunal for a further hearing.
I have considered the submissions from the Applicant, and find that no procedural issues have been identified, and I cannot see any potential for a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice to justify a rehearing, for these reasons.
Firstly, the Applicant seeks a rehearing on the basis that the Respondent handed up a range of documents at the hearing, which the Applicant did not have an opportunity to consider. It is the case that the Body Corporate handed up a range of documents at the hearing, but I am not persuaded that presents ground upon which a rehearing can be approved for these reasons:. a. The Tribunal does not require that parties file evidence or submission in advance, but that is preferred. The RTA requires that the Tribunal act expeditiously. I note the judicial review of Lwee & Yap v Tenancy Tribunal & Turner HC Christchurch CIV-2013-409-000583, 27 June 2013. In that case, the High Court confirmed that parties are not required in Tenancy Tribunal proceedings to disclose the nature of their evidence to the other party prior to hearing. In looking at the requirement under s.91 for the application to inform the other party as to the nature of the claim, the Court affirmed that the obligation under that provision was to ensure that the other party was acquainted with the ‘substance’ of the matter. The Court confirmed that: Section 96 confirms that it is for the Tribunal to regulate its procedure generally. It seems to me that in light of the Act practical simplicity, knowledge of the substance of the opponents’ case and a speedy hearing and resolution of the dispute are the touchstones which must be met by an adjudicator in order to ensure a fair hearing. Accordingly, the Body Corporate was not obligated to file evidence in advance. b. I am not persuaded that anything contained in that bundle of documents was material to the outcome of the hearing. The only document that may have been relevant were minutes of a Body Corporate meeting, which the Applicant would have received at the time. c. The Applicant has not convinced me that any of the documents presented by the Body Corporate either had not been received by him already, or that they could not have been obtained with reasonable due diligence. The only exception to that would be the example clearance certificate for the other unit, but that was not material, it was not a document that related to unit 57. d. The onus to prove his application is on the Applicant. It is the Applicant that must provide the evidence supporting his claim, not the Respondent. In the case the Applicant did not produce sufficient evidence showing a breach.
Secondly, the Unit Owner seeks a rehearing on the basis that he has not been able to receive a clearance certificate from CES. I accept that is the case, and I also accept that at the time the decision was issued, that I (and the Body Corporate) believed that would be where the certificate would be obtained. However that does not show a problem in the hearing procedure.
Even if that were not the case, there was a further reason that claim was dismissed, that was because the Unit Owner had not demonstrated an obligation on the Body Corporate to provide him with a clearance certificate. As I noted in the decision, because the asbestos was found inside the Applicant’s unit, it was the Applicants responsibility to remove, not the Body Corporates. The evidence points to the individual unit owners being responsible for obtaining any clearance certificate, not on the Body Corporate to provide it. If the Applicant considered that finding was wrong, he needed to appeal to the District Court, not seek a rehearing to be able to argue the matter again.
For those reasons, I find it has not been established that there is a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice – or the potential for that – which would require that a rehearing be granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9043804 — Leaks in Thorndon, Wellington

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 9043804 — Leaks in Thorndon, Wellington

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LAW

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LAW

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions