What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9069524 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 9069524?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9069524?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9069524?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12660349-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9069524 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 9069524?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9069524?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9069524?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12660349-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Parnell, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 9069524 — Property damage

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended today’s hearing (by video conference) to consider the rehearing application filed by the respondent on 12 September 2025.
The body corporate is represented by counsel Ms Tobeck. Mr McNaughton attended in person by telephone.
Counsel for the body corporate filed written submissions ahead of today’s hearing.
On 9 September 2025, I made an order for the respondent/unit owner to pay the body corporate unpaid levies, interest, costs and the Tribunal filing fee. Counsel for the body corporate and a body corporate manager attended the initial hearing on 9 September 2025. The unit owner did not attend that hearing.
The unit owner applied for a rehearing on the grounds that he was violently ill on 9 September and had advised the Registry that he will not be attending the hearing, which proceeded in his absence.
Mr McNaughton contends that all outstanding levy amounts have been paid and that it was just a matter of penalty interest, and insurance costs that are not owed.
Because the unit owner was violently ill on 9 September 2025, Mr McNaughton wanted a chance to appear to defend the claim.
The unit owner wants to be heard and insists that he has a defence to the body corporate’s claims.
The unit owner also wishes to ‘get a lawyer’ and be legally represented as the body corporate is legally represented.
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.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons, the unit owner has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
The unit owner has not been ordered to pay any insurance excess/costs.
The unit owner has been ordered to pay outstanding ordinary levies, interests and legal (collection) costs.
It is not sufficient for the unit owner to simply maintain that he has a defence and that he wishes to defend the adjudicated claims based on outstanding ordinary levies, interests and legal (collection) costs. The respondent must provide actual reasons and substantiate them in support of the rehearing application.
While the unit owner has provided a reason for his absence from the original hearing, it was incumbent on the rehearing applicant to provide evidence and material, or specific details of his defence which might affect the original outcome of the hearing.
There is nothing before me to indicate that the order made in favour of the body corporate on 9 September in respect of outstanding levies, interest and collection costs should not stand.
The unit owner has not pointed out any substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice despite his non-attendance at the original hearing.
The unit owner’s plea for legal representation at this late juncture also fails.
Counsel for the body corporate has by letter dated 9 July 2025 specifically drawn the unit owner to his right to legal representation: BODY CORPORATE 166208 – UNIT H(PH8) 1 We have recently received a notice of hearing from the Tenancy Tribunal in respect of the Body Corporate’s application to recover body corporate levies from you which is due to take place by Teams link with the District Court on 9 September 2025 at 9.30am. We presume that you have received this notice by now. 2 We confirm that we will be appearing at the hearing as the Body Corporate’s legal representatives. At the same time, we want to ensure that you are aware that you have the right to obtain your own legal advice and have a lawyer appear on your behalf at the Tenancy Tribunal hearing, should you wish to do so. 3 In particular, we draw your attention to section 93(4) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 which provides that “where any party to any proceedings before the Tribunal is represented by counsel, any other party to those proceedings may be represented by counsel”. Yours faithfully

MORGAN COAKLE

By notice of hearing dated 19 September 2025, both parties have been advised of today’s hearing to consider the unit owner’s rehearing application.
I am satisfied that the unit owner has had adequate opportunity to obtain counsel’s assistance and be legally represented, including at today’s hearing to consider the rehearing application.
It is not in order for the respondent to now say that he wishes to be legally represented and seek an adjournment/rehearing for that reason.
In order to grant a rehearing, I must be satisfied a substantial injustice has occurred, referring not only to the respondent’s justified absence at the original hearing, but also on whether he has an arguable defence to the adjudicated claims for outstanding levies, interests and collection costs.
There is no material and no cogent submissions from the unit owner which points to the possibility of changed outcome to the Tribunal order of 9 September 2025.
The unit owner has provided no arguable grounds or defence to the adjudicated claims for outstanding levies, interests and collection costs.
The rehearing applicant/respondent must provide some information subsequently which could affect the outcome. He has not done so.
Merely saying that he does not owe the amounts ordered, interests should not have been charged and costs should not be ordered against him, without further details, is not enough.
Ultimately, there is no new evidence or material being supplied before the Tribunal which might affect the outcome of the original hearing.
In Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, Judge Tuohy considered the provision “a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur” to be strong words which set a high standard and most obviously apply to cases of procedural error or discovery of new evidence.
Those words however cannot cover a complaint that Tenancy Tribunal was merely mistaken or wrong in its findings of fact or application of law. Where the grounds relied on in application for rehearing are complaints about legal correctness of decision they should have been dealt with by way of appeal. No distinction can be made between errors of law that are grave enough to constitute a substantial miscarriage of justice and those which are not.
Following Judge Tuohy’s ruling in McMillan, complaints about legal correctness of a decision should be dealt with by way of appeal rather than an application for rehearing and no distinction can be made between errors of law that are grave enough to constitute a substantial miscarriage of justice and those which are not.
Ultimately, there remains nothing before me today that could have affected the outcome of the previous hearing.
The unit owner has not provided in his submission any evidence, nor shown any error of law that may resulted in a substantial miscarriage of justice.
For these reasons, there is no basis for a rehearing and I hereby dismiss the unit owner’s application for a rehearing accordingly.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended today’s hearing (by video conference) to consider the rehearing application filed by the respondent on 12 September 2025.
The body corporate is represented by counsel Ms Tobeck. Mr McNaughton attended in person by telephone.
Counsel for the body corporate filed written submissions ahead of today’s hearing.
On 9 September 2025, I made an order for the respondent/unit owner to pay the body corporate unpaid levies, interest, costs and the Tribunal filing fee. Counsel for the body corporate and a body corporate manager attended the initial hearing on 9 September 2025. The unit owner did not attend that hearing.
The unit owner applied for a rehearing on the grounds that he was violently ill on 9 September and had advised the Registry that he will not be attending the hearing, which proceeded in his absence.
Mr McNaughton contends that all outstanding levy amounts have been paid and that it was just a matter of penalty interest, and insurance costs that are not owed.
Because the unit owner was violently ill on 9 September 2025, Mr McNaughton wanted a chance to appear to defend the claim.
The unit owner wants to be heard and insists that he has a defence to the body corporate’s claims.
The unit owner also wishes to ‘get a lawyer’ and be legally represented as the body corporate is legally represented.
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.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons, the unit owner has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
The unit owner has not been ordered to pay any insurance excess/costs.
The unit owner has been ordered to pay outstanding ordinary levies, interests and legal (collection) costs.
It is not sufficient for the unit owner to simply maintain that he has a defence and that he wishes to defend the adjudicated claims based on outstanding ordinary levies, interests and legal (collection) costs. The respondent must provide actual reasons and substantiate them in support of the rehearing application.
While the unit owner has provided a reason for his absence from the original hearing, it was incumbent on the rehearing applicant to provide evidence and material, or specific details of his defence which might affect the original outcome of the hearing.
There is nothing before me to indicate that the order made in favour of the body corporate on 9 September in respect of outstanding levies, interest and collection costs should not stand.
The unit owner has not pointed out any substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice despite his non-attendance at the original hearing.
The unit owner’s plea for legal representation at this late juncture also fails.
Counsel for the body corporate has by letter dated 9 July 2025 specifically drawn the unit owner to his right to legal representation: BODY CORPORATE 166208 – UNIT H(PH8) 1 We have recently received a notice of hearing from the Tenancy Tribunal in respect of the Body Corporate’s application to recover body corporate levies from you which is due to take place by Teams link with the District Court on 9 September 2025 at 9.30am. We presume that you have received this notice by now. 2 We confirm that we will be appearing at the hearing as the Body Corporate’s legal representatives. At the same time, we want to ensure that you are aware that you have the right to obtain your own legal advice and have a lawyer appear on your behalf at the Tenancy Tribunal hearing, should you wish to do so. 3 In particular, we draw your attention to section 93(4) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 which provides that “where any party to any proceedings before the Tribunal is represented by counsel, any other party to those proceedings may be represented by counsel”. Yours faithfully

MORGAN COAKLE

By notice of hearing dated 19 September 2025, both parties have been advised of today’s hearing to consider the unit owner’s rehearing application.
I am satisfied that the unit owner has had adequate opportunity to obtain counsel’s assistance and be legally represented, including at today’s hearing to consider the rehearing application.
It is not in order for the respondent to now say that he wishes to be legally represented and seek an adjournment/rehearing for that reason.
In order to grant a rehearing, I must be satisfied a substantial injustice has occurred, referring not only to the respondent’s justified absence at the original hearing, but also on whether he has an arguable defence to the adjudicated claims for outstanding levies, interests and collection costs.
There is no material and no cogent submissions from the unit owner which points to the possibility of changed outcome to the Tribunal order of 9 September 2025.
The unit owner has provided no arguable grounds or defence to the adjudicated claims for outstanding levies, interests and collection costs.
The rehearing applicant/respondent must provide some information subsequently which could affect the outcome. He has not done so.
Merely saying that he does not owe the amounts ordered, interests should not have been charged and costs should not be ordered against him, without further details, is not enough.
Ultimately, there is no new evidence or material being supplied before the Tribunal which might affect the outcome of the original hearing.
In Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, Judge Tuohy considered the provision “a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur” to be strong words which set a high standard and most obviously apply to cases of procedural error or discovery of new evidence.
Those words however cannot cover a complaint that Tenancy Tribunal was merely mistaken or wrong in its findings of fact or application of law. Where the grounds relied on in application for rehearing are complaints about legal correctness of decision they should have been dealt with by way of appeal. No distinction can be made between errors of law that are grave enough to constitute a substantial miscarriage of justice and those which are not.
Following Judge Tuohy’s ruling in McMillan, complaints about legal correctness of a decision should be dealt with by way of appeal rather than an application for rehearing and no distinction can be made between errors of law that are grave enough to constitute a substantial miscarriage of justice and those which are not.
Ultimately, there remains nothing before me today that could have affected the outcome of the previous hearing.
The unit owner has not provided in his submission any evidence, nor shown any error of law that may resulted in a substantial miscarriage of justice.
For these reasons, there is no basis for a rehearing and I hereby dismiss the unit owner’s application for a rehearing accordingly.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9069524 — Property damage in Parnell, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 9069524 — Property damage in Parnell, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

MORGAN COAKLE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

MORGAN COAKLE

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions