What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9062164?

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

How much money was awarded in case 9062164?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9062164?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9062164?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11980121-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9062164?

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

How much money was awarded in case 9062164?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9062164?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9062164?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11980121-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Bromley, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 9062164 — Unit Titles

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing today for the Tribunal to consider whether to grant a rehearing sought by the unit owners.
On 13 March 2025 the Tribunal made an order dismissing the unit owners’ application to have a body corporate resolution declining to fund repairs to their unit set aside. The Tribunal found that the body corporate was not responsible for the repairs to their unit.
On 20 March 2025 the unit owners applied for a rehearing on the grounds that an engineering opinion they obtained after the hearing supported their position that there was unresolved damage to their unit that might affect other units as well given that their unit is attached to the next-door unit. They say that further investigation is required to determine the extent of the damage from 2011 (before they purchased their unit) and whether it affects other units too. The law on rehearings
The law as it relates to re-hearings is set out in section 105(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The Tribunal has 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.
In Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, the Court considered the meaning of ‘substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice’. The Court said: [18]....These are strong words which set a high standard. They most obviously apply, as the adjudicator pointed out, 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 by a witness. The words 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. First, the strength of the language in s105 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 an 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 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 a 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.
I have quoted from these decisions to assist the unit owners to understand the nature of an application for rehearing.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

At the hearing today, the unit owners focussed on substantive issues – why they believe that the body corporate is responsible to fund (or at least investigate) the repairs to their unit, which might involve other units as well.
However, the substantive issues are not the focus. Rehearings are about process and procedure – did something go wrong with the Tribunal’s process? Were the parties not given the opportunity to be heard? Was there some objective miscarriage of justice that might have occurred?
The answer to all those questions in this case is no. The unit owners attended the hearing and were fully heard as was the body corporate. The Tribunal considered all the evidence before it and the submissions made and reached its decision.
That the units owner did not agree with or accept the decision is not a ground for a rehearing. It is a ground for an appeal.
I have considered whether the engineer’s evidence the unit owners obtained after the hearing is new evidence that could not have reasonably been available at the time of the hearing. As they put it, the new evidence ‘provides a new perspective’.
The unit owners confirmed that they had spoken to the engineer who has now provided a report, before the hearing, but he did not have time to produce a full report for the hearing. His report is dated 19 March 2025, 6 days (4 working days) after the date of the Tribunal’s order. They said he gave them a verbal opinion only before the hearing.
I do not find that this evidence is new evidence that could not have been obtained for the hearing. Nor would it likely have affected the outcome. The writer states that a previous report (Richards Consulting) that was before the Tribunal ‘captures most of the concerns’ about previous repair work and damage.
This is a case where the body corporate considered the repair issues and passed a resolution not to fund repairs to the unit owners’ unit, the only unit it considered required repair. These unit owners challenged that. The Tribunal heard their application and the body corporate’s response to it in full. The evidence they now want considered could have been provided then.
The unit owners want a second opportunity to present their case and the opportunity to now provide the evidence they could have provided at the first hearing. Rehearings are not granted for that purpose. The appropriate way forward was to appeal the Tribunal’s decision.
The unit owners have not established that there was any substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice arising from the Tribunal’s process or procedure.
The application for a rehearing is dismissed.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing today for the Tribunal to consider whether to grant a rehearing sought by the unit owners.
On 13 March 2025 the Tribunal made an order dismissing the unit owners’ application to have a body corporate resolution declining to fund repairs to their unit set aside. The Tribunal found that the body corporate was not responsible for the repairs to their unit.
On 20 March 2025 the unit owners applied for a rehearing on the grounds that an engineering opinion they obtained after the hearing supported their position that there was unresolved damage to their unit that might affect other units as well given that their unit is attached to the next-door unit. They say that further investigation is required to determine the extent of the damage from 2011 (before they purchased their unit) and whether it affects other units too. The law on rehearings
The law as it relates to re-hearings is set out in section 105(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The Tribunal has 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.
In Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, the Court considered the meaning of ‘substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice’. The Court said: [18]....These are strong words which set a high standard. They most obviously apply, as the adjudicator pointed out, 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 by a witness. The words 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. First, the strength of the language in s105 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 an 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 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 a 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.
I have quoted from these decisions to assist the unit owners to understand the nature of an application for rehearing.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

At the hearing today, the unit owners focussed on substantive issues – why they believe that the body corporate is responsible to fund (or at least investigate) the repairs to their unit, which might involve other units as well.
However, the substantive issues are not the focus. Rehearings are about process and procedure – did something go wrong with the Tribunal’s process? Were the parties not given the opportunity to be heard? Was there some objective miscarriage of justice that might have occurred?
The answer to all those questions in this case is no. The unit owners attended the hearing and were fully heard as was the body corporate. The Tribunal considered all the evidence before it and the submissions made and reached its decision.
That the units owner did not agree with or accept the decision is not a ground for a rehearing. It is a ground for an appeal.
I have considered whether the engineer’s evidence the unit owners obtained after the hearing is new evidence that could not have reasonably been available at the time of the hearing. As they put it, the new evidence ‘provides a new perspective’.
The unit owners confirmed that they had spoken to the engineer who has now provided a report, before the hearing, but he did not have time to produce a full report for the hearing. His report is dated 19 March 2025, 6 days (4 working days) after the date of the Tribunal’s order. They said he gave them a verbal opinion only before the hearing.
I do not find that this evidence is new evidence that could not have been obtained for the hearing. Nor would it likely have affected the outcome. The writer states that a previous report (Richards Consulting) that was before the Tribunal ‘captures most of the concerns’ about previous repair work and damage.
This is a case where the body corporate considered the repair issues and passed a resolution not to fund repairs to the unit owners’ unit, the only unit it considered required repair. These unit owners challenged that. The Tribunal heard their application and the body corporate’s response to it in full. The evidence they now want considered could have been provided then.
The unit owners want a second opportunity to present their case and the opportunity to now provide the evidence they could have provided at the first hearing. Rehearings are not granted for that purpose. The appropriate way forward was to appeal the Tribunal’s decision.
The unit owners have not established that there was any substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice arising from the Tribunal’s process or procedure.
The application for a rehearing is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9062164 — Unit Titles in Bromley, Christchurch

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 9062164 — Unit Titles in Bromley, Christchurch

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