What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9061544 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 9061544?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9061544?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9061544?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13818058-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9061544 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 9061544?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9061544?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9061544?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13818058-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 9061544 — Unit Titles

Order

The application is dismissed.

Reasons

This is an applicant by the applicant for a rehearing.
Both parties attended the hearing today, which was held remotely. Mr Marshall Shu appeared for the applicant and Ms Callaghan appeared for the Body Corporate.
The substantive application is a claim brought by the applicant for reversal by the Body Corporate of security and other related penalty charges, in the sum of $13,120.71. The applicant argued that when it sought to terminate the tenancy at its unit in 2022, the Tribunal found that the tenants were not in breach of operational rules and the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA). It says that it follows that these charges should not have been paid by it. It says it does not owe these charges because they relate to that unsuccessful application.
The Body Corporate submits that this is only part of the story and that the applicant’s tenants at the property were generally disruptive to other tenants and caused significant other damage, the cost of which was ultimately required to be paid by the applicant, including subsequent damage to a glass door and an internal wall.
On 2 March 2026 I dismissed the application 1 because the tenant did not appear. The notice of hearing was sent to the applicant’s email address and Mr Shu confirmed today that that indeed is his email address.
Mr Shu said he did not get the notice of hearing for the hearing on 2 March, but that for the following week, he had set a reminder to himself to prepare for the hearing. This conflicted slightly with his application, where he had said: “I had recorded a hearing date as the following week Monday (9 March 2026) but I did not record a hearing date as 02 March 2026, and I did not record the hearing for this matter.” 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 1 I note that there is an obvious typo in the order which records in item one that both parties appeared however only the Body Corporate appeared. 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: 13. 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 hearing had been set down for a hearing in person, so the resources of actual Court time were wasted.
I cannot allow a rehearing on the basis the applicant says he did not get the notice. The notice clearly went to his email address. What happened to it after that is outside the Tribunal’s hands.
The notice of hearing was before me when the matter was heard on 2 March.
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 is dismissed.

Reasons

This is an applicant by the applicant for a rehearing.
Both parties attended the hearing today, which was held remotely. Mr Marshall Shu appeared for the applicant and Ms Callaghan appeared for the Body Corporate.
The substantive application is a claim brought by the applicant for reversal by the Body Corporate of security and other related penalty charges, in the sum of $13,120.71. The applicant argued that when it sought to terminate the tenancy at its unit in 2022, the Tribunal found that the tenants were not in breach of operational rules and the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA). It says that it follows that these charges should not have been paid by it. It says it does not owe these charges because they relate to that unsuccessful application.
The Body Corporate submits that this is only part of the story and that the applicant’s tenants at the property were generally disruptive to other tenants and caused significant other damage, the cost of which was ultimately required to be paid by the applicant, including subsequent damage to a glass door and an internal wall.
On 2 March 2026 I dismissed the application 1 because the tenant did not appear. The notice of hearing was sent to the applicant’s email address and Mr Shu confirmed today that that indeed is his email address.
Mr Shu said he did not get the notice of hearing for the hearing on 2 March, but that for the following week, he had set a reminder to himself to prepare for the hearing. This conflicted slightly with his application, where he had said: “I had recorded a hearing date as the following week Monday (9 March 2026) but I did not record a hearing date as 02 March 2026, and I did not record the hearing for this matter.” 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 1 I note that there is an obvious typo in the order which records in item one that both parties appeared however only the Body Corporate appeared. 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: 13. 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 hearing had been set down for a hearing in person, so the resources of actual Court time were wasted.
I cannot allow a rehearing on the basis the applicant says he did not get the notice. The notice clearly went to his email address. What happened to it after that is outside the Tribunal’s hands.
The notice of hearing was before me when the matter was heard on 2 March.
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 9061544 — Unit Titles in Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 9061544 — Unit Titles in Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions