What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4225471?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4225471?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4225471?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4225471?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9318719-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4225471?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4225471?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4225471?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4225471?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9318719-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

25 The Enclave, Totara Heights, Auckland 2105 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4225471 — Exemplary damages

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 9 May 2022, the Tribunal made an order for the Landlord to pay an award to the Tenant for compensation, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee. The bond was also to be refunded to the Tenant.
On 18 May 2022, the Landlord filed a request for a rehearing stating he did not get the appropriate time to prepare for the case, a lot of the evidence to support this case was not provided, he had problems with his email when he left the country and he only knew when he received an email.
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.
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 Landlord has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
The Landlord submitted that he did not have sufficient time to prepare for the hearing. This matter was originally heard in July 2020 before Adjudicator Tam. The matter was then appealed to the District Court which led to the rehearing in April 2022.
In considering this submission, the Landlord had nearly two years to prepare for this hearing so it is incomprehensible how the Landlord did not have sufficient time to prepare.
The Landlord submitted there was no contract between himself and the Applicants. His sister who engaged with the Tenants when the Landlord was overseas, prepared a Tenancy Agreement for the Tenants so that Work and Income New Zealand would pay their rent. His sister gave them the wrong Tenancy Agreement. The Landlord submitted that there was no contract for a tenancy and the Tenants only started to complain about the tenancy after they experienced a burglary.
The Tenants submitted the sister acted as the Landlord’s Agent so there was a contract between the Tenants and the Landlord.
In considering this argument, these appear to be attempts by the Landlord to have a second opportunity to present their case but they are not grounds for rehearing.
The Landlord submits he was also facing a lot of mental distress and trauma so at the time of the rehearing, he could not vocalise his evidence properly. The Landlord provided a medical certificate from his treating Psychiatrist Dr O’Flynn, dated 21 August 2023. This stated: “Mr Sohrabi is a patient of this service receiving treatment for an episode of serious mental illness. It would appear that his initial breakdown, about a year ago, was related to stress experienced regarding the tenancy of his house. He continues to experience anxiety and is concerned that he may have difficulty because of anxiety in presenting his case to court. When last in court he feels he did not present his case well and forgot important details because of panic. Hopefully resolution of his case will help with his recovery”.
The Psychiatrist stated the Landlord had an initial mental breakdown about a year ago which would be August 2022. The hearing was held on 29 April 2022, months before his breakdown. The Psychiatrist then stated that the Applicant was concerned that the Landlord may have difficulty presenting his case well and remembering the details because of his anxiety and panic.
The Tenants submitted the Landlord raised the issues of his mental health at a previous hearing but this was dismissed because he never had any evidence of this.
In considering this submission, I am satisfied that the Landlord has not proven that his anxiety and panic affected his ability to conduct his proceedings. There was no statement from the Psychiatrist confirming that the Landlord’s anxiety affected his conduct in court. The Psychiatrist simply confirmed the perception of the Landlord. If the Landlord felt he was suffering from anxiety and panic during the hearing, he did not raise this in the hearing or in his request for a rehearing application. The Landlord never requested a representative for the hearing to assist with his anxiety or request an adjournment because his anxiety was affecting his wellbeing.
For these reasons, I dismiss the Landlord’s application and the Orders made on 9 May 2022 remain in force.

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 9 May 2022, the Tribunal made an order for the Landlord to pay an award to the Tenant for compensation, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee. The bond was also to be refunded to the Tenant.
On 18 May 2022, the Landlord filed a request for a rehearing stating he did not get the appropriate time to prepare for the case, a lot of the evidence to support this case was not provided, he had problems with his email when he left the country and he only knew when he received an email.
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.
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 Landlord has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
The Landlord submitted that he did not have sufficient time to prepare for the hearing. This matter was originally heard in July 2020 before Adjudicator Tam. The matter was then appealed to the District Court which led to the rehearing in April 2022.
In considering this submission, the Landlord had nearly two years to prepare for this hearing so it is incomprehensible how the Landlord did not have sufficient time to prepare.
The Landlord submitted there was no contract between himself and the Applicants. His sister who engaged with the Tenants when the Landlord was overseas, prepared a Tenancy Agreement for the Tenants so that Work and Income New Zealand would pay their rent. His sister gave them the wrong Tenancy Agreement. The Landlord submitted that there was no contract for a tenancy and the Tenants only started to complain about the tenancy after they experienced a burglary.
The Tenants submitted the sister acted as the Landlord’s Agent so there was a contract between the Tenants and the Landlord.
In considering this argument, these appear to be attempts by the Landlord to have a second opportunity to present their case but they are not grounds for rehearing.
The Landlord submits he was also facing a lot of mental distress and trauma so at the time of the rehearing, he could not vocalise his evidence properly. The Landlord provided a medical certificate from his treating Psychiatrist Dr O’Flynn, dated 21 August 2023. This stated: “Mr Sohrabi is a patient of this service receiving treatment for an episode of serious mental illness. It would appear that his initial breakdown, about a year ago, was related to stress experienced regarding the tenancy of his house. He continues to experience anxiety and is concerned that he may have difficulty because of anxiety in presenting his case to court. When last in court he feels he did not present his case well and forgot important details because of panic. Hopefully resolution of his case will help with his recovery”.
The Psychiatrist stated the Landlord had an initial mental breakdown about a year ago which would be August 2022. The hearing was held on 29 April 2022, months before his breakdown. The Psychiatrist then stated that the Applicant was concerned that the Landlord may have difficulty presenting his case well and remembering the details because of his anxiety and panic.
The Tenants submitted the Landlord raised the issues of his mental health at a previous hearing but this was dismissed because he never had any evidence of this.
In considering this submission, I am satisfied that the Landlord has not proven that his anxiety and panic affected his ability to conduct his proceedings. There was no statement from the Psychiatrist confirming that the Landlord’s anxiety affected his conduct in court. The Psychiatrist simply confirmed the perception of the Landlord. If the Landlord felt he was suffering from anxiety and panic during the hearing, he did not raise this in the hearing or in his request for a rehearing application. The Landlord never requested a representative for the hearing to assist with his anxiety or request an adjournment because his anxiety was affecting his wellbeing.
For these reasons, I dismiss the Landlord’s application and the Orders made on 9 May 2022 remain in force.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4225471 — Exemplary damages at 25 The Enclave, Totara Heights, Auckland 2105

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4225471 — Exemplary damages at 25 The Enclave, Totara Heights, Auckland 2105

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

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions