What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4514038?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4514038?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4514038?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4514038?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9291982-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4514038?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4514038?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4514038?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4514038?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9291982-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

74B Denise Crescent, Hornby, Christchurch 8042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4514038 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 6 July 2023 the Tribunal made orders regarding this tenancy.
The tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that she wanted to submit further evidence. That evidence was in relation to financial hardship.
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. 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.
In Jemma Trust v Rutherford (DC North Shore, CIV-2009-044-2056, 11 December 1999), the District Court quoted an extract from the Court of Appeal outlining the relevant considerations: The principles upon which further evidence is admitted are designed to balance the interests of the person seeking to adduce such evidence on the one hand with the interests of the opposite party is on the other. They are also designed to reflect the public interest in ensuring, so far as is possible, that parties put up their best case at trial. Any other approach would be very wasteful of public resources. The conventional requirements are that the further evidence must be fresh, it must be credible and it must be cogent. Evidence is not regarded as fresh if it could with reasonable diligence have been produced at the trial....While the absence of freshness is not an absolute disqualification, the criteria for admission in such circumstances must be very strict. In our view, when the evidence is not fresh it should not be admitted unless the circumstances are exceptional and the grounds compelling.
At the hearing today, the tenant also claimed that the previous decision was unfair to her.
In Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, the District Court 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: [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 occurring. This implies 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 the general hierarchical nature of the appeal system, it would also make the time limit for filing notice of appeal against an original decision nugatory.
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 tenant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
The evidence presented today, was a bundle of bills and various other liabilities the tenant has. She also provided evidence of the landlord having followed up for late rent payments. The parties are obliged to provide the evidence that supports their position. All of the evidence presented today was reasonably available before the last hearing.
In any event, the evidence presented would not have altered the outcome of the previous decision. The tenant had applied for early termination of the fixed term tenancy. The landlord allowed early termination on reasonable terms.
The tenant also attempted to relitigate issues regarding the condition of the property. Those issues were canvassed at the last hearing and the tenant did not discharge the onus of proving her claims.
The tenant’s primary reason for seeking a rehearing was that she can not afford to pay the landlord, and the outcome is unfair. That is not a ground for rehearing.
The rehearing application is dismissed.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 6 July 2023 the Tribunal made orders regarding this tenancy.
The tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that she wanted to submit further evidence. That evidence was in relation to financial hardship.
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. 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.
In Jemma Trust v Rutherford (DC North Shore, CIV-2009-044-2056, 11 December 1999), the District Court quoted an extract from the Court of Appeal outlining the relevant considerations: The principles upon which further evidence is admitted are designed to balance the interests of the person seeking to adduce such evidence on the one hand with the interests of the opposite party is on the other. They are also designed to reflect the public interest in ensuring, so far as is possible, that parties put up their best case at trial. Any other approach would be very wasteful of public resources. The conventional requirements are that the further evidence must be fresh, it must be credible and it must be cogent. Evidence is not regarded as fresh if it could with reasonable diligence have been produced at the trial....While the absence of freshness is not an absolute disqualification, the criteria for admission in such circumstances must be very strict. In our view, when the evidence is not fresh it should not be admitted unless the circumstances are exceptional and the grounds compelling.
At the hearing today, the tenant also claimed that the previous decision was unfair to her.
In Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, the District Court 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: [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 occurring. This implies 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 the general hierarchical nature of the appeal system, it would also make the time limit for filing notice of appeal against an original decision nugatory.
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 tenant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
The evidence presented today, was a bundle of bills and various other liabilities the tenant has. She also provided evidence of the landlord having followed up for late rent payments. The parties are obliged to provide the evidence that supports their position. All of the evidence presented today was reasonably available before the last hearing.
In any event, the evidence presented would not have altered the outcome of the previous decision. The tenant had applied for early termination of the fixed term tenancy. The landlord allowed early termination on reasonable terms.
The tenant also attempted to relitigate issues regarding the condition of the property. Those issues were canvassed at the last hearing and the tenant did not discharge the onus of proving her claims.
The tenant’s primary reason for seeking a rehearing was that she can not afford to pay the landlord, and the outcome is unfair. That is not a ground for rehearing.
The rehearing application is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4514038 — Tenancy dispute at 74B Denise Crescent, Hornby, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4514038 — Tenancy dispute at 74B Denise Crescent, Hornby, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions