What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4505591?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4505591?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4505591?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4505591?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9307011-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4505591?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4505591?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4505591?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4505591?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9307011-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

2 Bell Street, Whanganui, Whanganui 4500, Commercial Tenancy Tribunal Case 4505591 — Boarding House

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

On 15 May 2023 the Tribunal made an order for reimbursement of the bond of $500.00.

On 17 May 2023 Mr Steve Lawson applied for a rehearing on the grounds that: a. The respondent stated in the order was incorrect because it is Sunlaw Investments Ltd which holds the lease to the Commercial Hotel. He produced an affidavit from his accountant confirming this. b. The Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to deal with the matter, because of section 5(1)(j).

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 Mr Lawson has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

In the tenant’s application for refund of the bond, Steve Lawson and Kit Edwards were named as the respondents. This is based on the agreement which was produced at the hearing, showing the landlord as Steve Lawson and Kit Edwards, and the tenant as Liam Sanderson. Therefore, regardless of any lease arrangement between Sunlaw Investments Limited, Mr Lawson, Ms Edwards and Mr Sanderson had entered into a tenancy. I do not find any procedural flaw with the original decision on that basis.

The next argument is that I have made an error of law. That may be the basis for an appeal, but is not a ground for a rehearing. Mr Lawson refers to section 5(j) of the Act. The discussion of the status of the hotel and reasons for finding that the contractual arrangement between the three individuals was one of a boarding house tenancy are set out in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the decision. Any consideration of contracting out the Act must also be considered in the context of section 11 of the Act.

I do not find a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice. The application for a rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

On 15 May 2023 the Tribunal made an order for reimbursement of the bond of $500.00.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons Mr Lawson has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

I do not find a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice. The application for a rehearing is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4505591 — Boarding House at 2 Bell Street, Whanganui, Whanganui 4500, Commercial

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4505591 — Boarding House at 2 Bell Street, Whanganui, Whanganui 4500, Commercial

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