What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9079444 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 9079444?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9079444?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9079444?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13900206-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 9079444 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 9079444?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9079444?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9079444?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13900206-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Rosedale, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 9079444 — Unit Titles

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.
Costs are reserved. a. The Body Corporate must submit any application for costs in respect of the rehearing application by 5pm on Thursday 23 July 2026. b. The unit owners must submit any response to an application for costs by 5pm on Thursday, 30 July 2026.

Reasons

Counsel for both parties attended a rehearing hearing by video.
On 29 April, the Tribunal made an order for outstanding levies, interest and costs. The unit owners applied for a rehearing of that order. I sought written submissions from the parties and made further directions on 13 May 2026, as follows: Both parties have provided submissions, as directed. I indicated that I would then consider the rehearing application “on the papers”. However, claims made by the unit owners are inconsistent with the Tribunal file. The unit owners claim that they did not receive the notice of hearing or the application before the hearing. The Tribunal file shows that the documents were sent as attachments to an email on 26 March. The file establishes that those documents left the Tribunal server, with that email. Because of that inconsistency, the Tribunal is required to have a hearing to decide whether to grant a rehearing of the original matter. See Xpert Management Solutions Ltd v Bravo [2015] NZDC 1506, 9 February 2015, Judge de Ridder; also section 171 Unit Titles Act 2010, sections 96(4) and 105 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The application for rehearing was made on the grounds that the unit owners had not had a reasonable opportunity to attend the hearing. The unit owner emailed the Tribunal after the hearing had started and said that they did not receive the Notice of Hearing and supporting documents. That position was inconsistent with the Tribunal file, as set out above.
As such, I convened a rehearing hearing and expected the unit owner to attend to explain his position that he had not received the Notice of Hearing. He elected not to attend.
Rather, the unit owner through Counsel and vague evidence from Mr Brown, now claim that they attempted to join the hearing via the video link but were unable to do so. That position cannot be reconciled with the earlier claim, that the unit owner had not received the link. The owner should have attended the hearing to explain his position to the Tribunal. His explanations are equivocal and unreliable.
The unit owner’s current position is that the Tribunal did not contact him on the number he provided after the hearing had started, so he did not have a reasonable opportunity to attend.
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 Notice of Hearing and supporting documents were sent to the unit owner on 26 March 2026.
The Notice of Hearing records that, if the party can not attend by video, the Tribunal will attempt to contact them on the phone number in the Notice of Hearing. There was no phone number provided for the unit owner. 1 In those circumstances, it was incumbent on the owner to contact the Tribunal before the hearing and provide correct and up to date contact details. The owner sent an email to the Tribunal registry during the hearing, claiming he had not received the Notice of Hearing and providing a contact phone number.
The unit owner also now claims that he does not understand how the levies have been calculated but raises no genuine dispute or arguable defence to the claim.
The Body Corporate notes: “On 20 January 2026, the respondents wrote “Who care”, in response to an email from the Body Corporate manager following up on the unpaid debt and advising of the accrual of debt collection fees. The email chain was provided with the memorandum filed in advance of the Tribunal’s hearing and a copy is also attached to this memorandum. Similarly, despite receiving a letter of demand from counsel for the Body Corporate on 13 February 2026 and notice of the Body Corporate’s claim filed in the Tribunal, the respondents’ have not responded until now.”
The Body Corporate submits that the unit owner’s failure to attend the hearing was caused by his own lack of preparation and failure to take the application seriously, until it was too late. There is merit in that submission.
The unit owner has then altered his position on why he did not attend, when it was clear that the Notice of Hearing had been sent to him.
The unit owner has failed to establish any error in the Tribunal process. The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.
Costs are reserved. a. The Body Corporate must submit any application for costs in respect of the rehearing application by 5pm on Thursday 23 July 2026. b. The unit owners must submit any response to an application for costs by 5pm on Thursday, 30 July 2026.

Reasons

Counsel for both parties attended a rehearing hearing by video.
On 29 April, the Tribunal made an order for outstanding levies, interest and costs. The unit owners applied for a rehearing of that order. I sought written submissions from the parties and made further directions on 13 May 2026, as follows: Both parties have provided submissions, as directed. I indicated that I would then consider the rehearing application “on the papers”. However, claims made by the unit owners are inconsistent with the Tribunal file. The unit owners claim that they did not receive the notice of hearing or the application before the hearing. The Tribunal file shows that the documents were sent as attachments to an email on 26 March. The file establishes that those documents left the Tribunal server, with that email. Because of that inconsistency, the Tribunal is required to have a hearing to decide whether to grant a rehearing of the original matter. See Xpert Management Solutions Ltd v Bravo [2015] NZDC 1506, 9 February 2015, Judge de Ridder; also section 171 Unit Titles Act 2010, sections 96(4) and 105 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
The application for rehearing was made on the grounds that the unit owners had not had a reasonable opportunity to attend the hearing. The unit owner emailed the Tribunal after the hearing had started and said that they did not receive the Notice of Hearing and supporting documents. That position was inconsistent with the Tribunal file, as set out above.
As such, I convened a rehearing hearing and expected the unit owner to attend to explain his position that he had not received the Notice of Hearing. He elected not to attend.
Rather, the unit owner through Counsel and vague evidence from Mr Brown, now claim that they attempted to join the hearing via the video link but were unable to do so. That position cannot be reconciled with the earlier claim, that the unit owner had not received the link. The owner should have attended the hearing to explain his position to the Tribunal. His explanations are equivocal and unreliable.
The unit owner’s current position is that the Tribunal did not contact him on the number he provided after the hearing had started, so he did not have a reasonable opportunity to attend.
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 Notice of Hearing and supporting documents were sent to the unit owner on 26 March 2026.
The Notice of Hearing records that, if the party can not attend by video, the Tribunal will attempt to contact them on the phone number in the Notice of Hearing. There was no phone number provided for the unit owner. 1 In those circumstances, it was incumbent on the owner to contact the Tribunal before the hearing and provide correct and up to date contact details. The owner sent an email to the Tribunal registry during the hearing, claiming he had not received the Notice of Hearing and providing a contact phone number.
The unit owner also now claims that he does not understand how the levies have been calculated but raises no genuine dispute or arguable defence to the claim.
The Body Corporate notes: “On 20 January 2026, the respondents wrote “Who care”, in response to an email from the Body Corporate manager following up on the unpaid debt and advising of the accrual of debt collection fees. The email chain was provided with the memorandum filed in advance of the Tribunal’s hearing and a copy is also attached to this memorandum. Similarly, despite receiving a letter of demand from counsel for the Body Corporate on 13 February 2026 and notice of the Body Corporate’s claim filed in the Tribunal, the respondents’ have not responded until now.”
The Body Corporate submits that the unit owner’s failure to attend the hearing was caused by his own lack of preparation and failure to take the application seriously, until it was too late. There is merit in that submission.
The unit owner has then altered his position on why he did not attend, when it was clear that the Notice of Hearing had been sent to him.
The unit owner has failed to establish any error in the Tribunal process. The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9079444 — Unit Titles in Rosedale, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 9079444 — Unit Titles in Rosedale, 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

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions