What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4480189?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4480189?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4480189?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4480189?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11620126-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4480189?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4480189?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4480189?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4480189?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11620126-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

19A Commissariat Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1060 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4480189 — Boarding House

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Mr Mason (the tenant) applied for a rehearing of the Tenancy Tribunal’s order dated 13 December 2024 (applications 4480189, 4568229, 4718529). The application is based on 50 pages of submissions alleging procedural irregularities, misapplication of the law, significant factual errors, and adjudicator bias.
Mr Gao for Edgecom Limited T/A Kings Property Management Limited As Agent For Good News Investment Co. Ltd (the landlord) opposes the rehearing application.
A hearing was held on 12 February 2025 by teleconference to consider whether a rehearing should be granted or not. Both parties attended the hearing.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Section 105(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) 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”. 4480189, 4568229, 47185292
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. 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, or as an alternative to an appeal.
As clarified by the District Court in Wellington City Council v McMillan (MA 70/02, DC Wellington, 17 June 2002) the threshold in section 105(1) is high: “[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 decision being wrong, but of a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice. 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 for rehearing. Not only does that offend against the general hierarchical nature of the appeal system, it would also make the time for filing notice of appeal against an original decision nugatory.”
A “substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice” implies an obvious injustice, not simply a decision with which a party disagrees.
The decision in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy, Waitakere 12 April 2002 further reinforces that applicants must provide the necessary evidence at the original hearing. A failure to do so does not entitle a party to a rehearing.
For the following reasons, Mr Mason has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing. Disagreement with Findings of Fact and Law
Mr Mason’s submissions largely reflect dissatisfaction with the Tribunal’s factual findings and application of the law. However, as affirmed in Wellington City Council v McMillan, such disagreement does not constitute a miscarriage of justice for the purpose of section 105. 4480189, 4568229, 47185293 Allegation of Bias
Mr Mason alleges the Adjudicator demonstrated bias in favour of the landlord.
The applicable test is whether an informed objective bystander could reasonably apprehend that the decision-maker might not bring an impartial mind to the case. This does not require proof of actual bias (Saxmere Co Ltd v Wool Board Disestablishment Co Ltd [2009] NZSC 72).
There is no credible or objective evidence before me suggesting either actual or perceived bias. The adjudicator’s decisions reflected proper application of law and discretion, not favouritism. Mr Mason’s allegations appear rooted in disappointment with procedural outcomes rather than demonstrated unfairness.
The claim of bias is unsubstantiated and does not provide a ground for rehearing. Procedural Conduct of the Hearing
Mr Mason claims that the proceedings were unfair due to unequal time allocation, denial of remote attendance, interruptions, and the Tribunal’s refusal to accept certain evidence.
Under section 85(1) RTA, the Tribunal must act “in a manner that is fair and just, but not bound by strict legal procedure.” The Tribunal has broad discretion under section 96(4) to regulate its own procedure, and under section 97(4) to admit any evidence it considers useful.
While Mr Mason was critical of the Tribunal’s flexibility regarding late evidence and deviation from case conference directions, this discretion is lawful. As seen in Scott v Alan Dyer Enterprises Limited, CIV-2012-085-000352, District Court, 9 January 2013, the Tribunal has the power—and duty—to manage proceedings with fairness and efficiency, even if this results in stricter timekeeping or procedural control.
The hearing record shows both parties were given sufficient opportunities to present their cases. The Adjudicator’s management of interruptions and evidence was within the bounds of procedural fairness and natural justice.
There is no evidence of procedural irregularity sufficient to justify a rehearing. No New Evidence
Mr Mason has not submitted any new evidence that was not reasonably available at the time of the original hearings, and which could have materially altered the outcome. Assertions made relate to the weight of evidence previously considered, which is not a valid basis for a rehearing under section 105. 4480189, 4568229, 47185294 Allegations of Misinterpretation and Misclassification
Concerns regarding tenancy classification (boarding house vs standard tenancy), scope of claims (kitchen vs whole house), and allowance of landlord evidence are again disagreements with the decision and its underlying reasoning. These are appeal matters and do not amount to miscarriage of justice. Conclusion
Mr Mason has failed to demonstrate that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred or may occur. His application amounts to a restatement of arguments already considered and rejected in the Tribunal’s 13 December 2024 decision.
As confirmed in Wellington City Council v McMillan, the purpose of section 105 is not to provide an avenue for parties to “recycle” failed arguments or re-litigate the same claims.
A rehearing is not another opportunity to present a case, simply because a party disagrees with the outcome. My impression, that is what Mr Mason is seeking. He is not entitled to an opportunity to re-litigate the matter or a second chance to present his case. Ultimately, there is nothing in the rehearing application that would lead me to making a different decision nor an indication of any new evidence that was not reasonably available at the time of the hearings which would have changed the outcome.
I am not satisfied a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred. Accordingly, the application for rehearing fails and is therefore dismissed.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Mr Mason (the tenant) applied for a rehearing of the Tenancy Tribunal’s order dated 13 December 2024 (applications 4480189, 4568229, 4718529). The application is based on 50 pages of submissions alleging procedural irregularities, misapplication of the law, significant factual errors, and adjudicator bias.
Mr Gao for Edgecom Limited T/A Kings Property Management Limited As Agent For Good News Investment Co. Ltd (the landlord) opposes the rehearing application.
A hearing was held on 12 February 2025 by teleconference to consider whether a rehearing should be granted or not. Both parties attended the hearing.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Section 105(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) 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”. 4480189, 4568229, 47185292
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. 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, or as an alternative to an appeal.
As clarified by the District Court in Wellington City Council v McMillan (MA 70/02, DC Wellington, 17 June 2002) the threshold in section 105(1) is high: “[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 decision being wrong, but of a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice. 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 for rehearing. Not only does that offend against the general hierarchical nature of the appeal system, it would also make the time for filing notice of appeal against an original decision nugatory.”
A “substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice” implies an obvious injustice, not simply a decision with which a party disagrees.
The decision in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy, Waitakere 12 April 2002 further reinforces that applicants must provide the necessary evidence at the original hearing. A failure to do so does not entitle a party to a rehearing.
For the following reasons, Mr Mason has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing. Disagreement with Findings of Fact and Law
Mr Mason’s submissions largely reflect dissatisfaction with the Tribunal’s factual findings and application of the law. However, as affirmed in Wellington City Council v McMillan, such disagreement does not constitute a miscarriage of justice for the purpose of section 105. 4480189, 4568229, 47185293 Allegation of Bias
Mr Mason alleges the Adjudicator demonstrated bias in favour of the landlord.
The applicable test is whether an informed objective bystander could reasonably apprehend that the decision-maker might not bring an impartial mind to the case. This does not require proof of actual bias (Saxmere Co Ltd v Wool Board Disestablishment Co Ltd [2009] NZSC 72).
There is no credible or objective evidence before me suggesting either actual or perceived bias. The adjudicator’s decisions reflected proper application of law and discretion, not favouritism. Mr Mason’s allegations appear rooted in disappointment with procedural outcomes rather than demonstrated unfairness.
The claim of bias is unsubstantiated and does not provide a ground for rehearing. Procedural Conduct of the Hearing
Mr Mason claims that the proceedings were unfair due to unequal time allocation, denial of remote attendance, interruptions, and the Tribunal’s refusal to accept certain evidence.
Under section 85(1) RTA, the Tribunal must act “in a manner that is fair and just, but not bound by strict legal procedure.” The Tribunal has broad discretion under section 96(4) to regulate its own procedure, and under section 97(4) to admit any evidence it considers useful.
While Mr Mason was critical of the Tribunal’s flexibility regarding late evidence and deviation from case conference directions, this discretion is lawful. As seen in Scott v Alan Dyer Enterprises Limited, CIV-2012-085-000352, District Court, 9 January 2013, the Tribunal has the power—and duty—to manage proceedings with fairness and efficiency, even if this results in stricter timekeeping or procedural control.
The hearing record shows both parties were given sufficient opportunities to present their cases. The Adjudicator’s management of interruptions and evidence was within the bounds of procedural fairness and natural justice.
There is no evidence of procedural irregularity sufficient to justify a rehearing. No New Evidence
Mr Mason has not submitted any new evidence that was not reasonably available at the time of the original hearings, and which could have materially altered the outcome. Assertions made relate to the weight of evidence previously considered, which is not a valid basis for a rehearing under section 105. 4480189, 4568229, 47185294 Allegations of Misinterpretation and Misclassification
Concerns regarding tenancy classification (boarding house vs standard tenancy), scope of claims (kitchen vs whole house), and allowance of landlord evidence are again disagreements with the decision and its underlying reasoning. These are appeal matters and do not amount to miscarriage of justice. Conclusion
Mr Mason has failed to demonstrate that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred or may occur. His application amounts to a restatement of arguments already considered and rejected in the Tribunal’s 13 December 2024 decision.
As confirmed in Wellington City Council v McMillan, the purpose of section 105 is not to provide an avenue for parties to “recycle” failed arguments or re-litigate the same claims.
A rehearing is not another opportunity to present a case, simply because a party disagrees with the outcome. My impression, that is what Mr Mason is seeking. He is not entitled to an opportunity to re-litigate the matter or a second chance to present his case. Ultimately, there is nothing in the rehearing application that would lead me to making a different decision nor an indication of any new evidence that was not reasonably available at the time of the hearings which would have changed the outcome.
I am not satisfied a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred. Accordingly, the application for rehearing fails and is therefore dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4480189 — Boarding House at 19A Commissariat Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1060

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4480189 — Boarding House at 19A Commissariat Road, Mount Wellington, Auckland 1060

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