What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4514410?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4514410?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4514410?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4514410?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9174230-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4514410?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4514410?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4514410?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4514410?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9174230-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

169 Grant Road, Thorndon, Wellington 6011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4514410 — Tenancy dispute

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing to decide the landlord’s rehearing application. The application was filed because the landlord did not come to the first hearing held at the Wellington Court on 17 May 2023 and I dismissed his application. The tenants did come to that hearing. I refunded the bond held in dispute to the tenants.

On 22 May 2023 the landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that he assumed the hearing would be held by telephone.

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.

In Emshoff v McInnes (DC Auckland, TT 1038/89, 30 October 1989), the District Court held that, where a respondent does not appear at the original hearing, the relevant considerations are: a. Is there a reasonable excuse for the non-appearance? b. Did they act promptly? c. Is there a defence which ought to be heard? d. Will the applicant suffer hardship if a rehearing is granted?

The landlord is the applicant here, not the respondent. However, I find the same principles should be applied to ensure that natural justice is considered.

As to b and c, the landlord acted promptly after he received my order dismissing his application. He submits there is a claim that ought to be heard, and I agree the claim for $423.20 for damage is one that can be brought in the Tribunal.

As to d, it was the tenants who appeared at the first hearing, in person and ready to defend the landlord’s application. It would be inconvenient for them to appear again. I find they would suffer hardship if a matter they thought to be finalised is set down for another hearing.

Finally, I must consider if there was a reasonable excuse for the non- appearance. The landlord’s submission is that the matter started with mediation over the phone, and he expected the hearing would be held by telephone as well. He said he was waiting by the telephone at the allocated hearing time expecting a call. This is despite an emailed notice of hearing sent to the landlord on 9 May, which states in the email and in the attached notice that there would be a hearing in the Wellington Court. Reminders stating the hearing would be held at “43-49 Ballance Street, Wellington Central, Wellington 6011” were sent by email on 15 May, and on 17 May.

When this was pointed out the landlord agreed he made a mistake, but he said it would be unfair and a breach of natural justice for his application not to be heard because of an error.

I find there was nothing wrong with the Tribunal’s process here because the landlord received the required notices about the hearing. I find the landlord was advised more than once that the hearing would take place in Wellington, and not on the telephone. In fact, he had three opportunities to check the venue for the hearing. I find it would be unfair to expect the tenants to attend another hearing. I am not persuaded there are grounds for a rehearing.

This order will not be published.

The tenants should check with the Bond Centre because I cannot see any reason why their bond refund would be delayed.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing to decide the landlord’s rehearing application. The application was filed because the landlord did not come to the first hearing held at the Wellington Court on 17 May 2023 and I dismissed his application. The tenants did come to that hearing. I refunded the bond held in dispute to the tenants.
On 22 May 2023 the landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that he assumed the hearing would be held by telephone.
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.
In Emshoff v McInnes (DC Auckland, TT 1038/89, 30 October 1989), the District Court held that, where a respondent does not appear at the original hearing, the relevant considerations are: a. Is there a reasonable excuse for the non-appearance? b. Did they act promptly? c. Is there a defence which ought to be heard? d. Will the applicant suffer hardship if a rehearing is granted?
The landlord is the applicant here, not the respondent. However, I find the same principles should be applied to ensure that natural justice is considered.
As to b and c, the landlord acted promptly after he received my order dismissing his application. He submits there is a claim that ought to be heard, and I agree the claim for $423.20 for damage is one that can be brought in the Tribunal.
As to d, it was the tenants who appeared at the first hearing, in person and ready to defend the landlord’s application. It would be inconvenient for them to appear again. I find they would suffer hardship if a matter they thought to be finalised is set down for another hearing.
Finally, I must consider if there was a reasonable excuse for the non- appearance. The landlord’s submission is that the matter started with mediation over the phone, and he expected the hearing would be held by telephone as well. He said he was waiting by the telephone at the allocated hearing time expecting a call. This is despite an emailed notice of hearing sent to the landlord on 9 May, which states in the email and in the attached notice that there would be a hearing in the Wellington Court. Reminders stating the hearing would be held at “43-49 Ballance Street, Wellington Central, Wellington 6011” were sent by email on 15 May, and on 17 May.
When this was pointed out the landlord agreed he made a mistake, but he said it would be unfair and a breach of natural justice for his application not to be heard because of an error.
I find there was nothing wrong with the Tribunal’s process here because the landlord received the required notices about the hearing. I find the landlord was advised more than once that the hearing would take place in Wellington, and not on the telephone. In fact, he had three opportunities to check the venue for the hearing. I find it would be unfair to expect the tenants to attend another hearing. I am not persuaded there are grounds for a rehearing.
This order will not be published.
The tenants should check with the Bond Centre because I cannot see any reason why their bond refund would be delayed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4514410 — Tenancy dispute at 169 Grant Road, Thorndon, Wellington 6011

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4514410 — Tenancy dispute at 169 Grant Road, Thorndon, Wellington 6011

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions