What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4538431?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4538431?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4538431?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4538431?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10242750-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4538431?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4538431?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4538431?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4538431?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10242750-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

21 High Road, Glenfield, Auckland 0629 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4538431 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.

On 22 January 2024 the Tribunal made an order dismissing the landlord’s compensation claims and directing that the tenant’s bond be refunded.

On 25 January 2024 the landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that there is additional evidence, not presented at the hearing, which might have changed the outcome.

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?

I have heard from the parties and in particular from the landlord about the additional evidence he wants the opportunity to present to the Tribunal.

The initial application by the tenant was filed on 2 April 2023. A hearing on 30 May 2023 was adjourned to allow the landlord to bring the application for compensation for water damage, that was determined in the 22 January 2024 Order. A further hearing on 9 June 2023 was also adjourned.

The 22 January 2024 Order was made after a hearing in person, which both parties attended.

The landlord has had fair opportunity to prepare and present his case to the Tribunal. None of the new evidence the landlord wishes to present appears to be evidence that he only became aware of after the hearing.

Essentially, the landlord’s position is that it was not until the hearing that he discovered that he should have provided more evidence in support of his claim and he was unable to retrieve that evidence from his phone/ laptop on the day.

It would not be appropriate or fair to the tenant to grant a rehearing to effectively give the landlord a second opportunity to present his case.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference.

On 22 January 2024 the Tribunal made an order dismissing the landlord’s compensation claims and directing that the tenant’s bond be refunded.

On 25 January 2024 the landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that there is additional evidence, not presented at the hearing, which might have changed the outcome.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

I have heard from the parties and in particular from the landlord about the additional evidence he wants the opportunity to present to the Tribunal.

The 22 January 2024 Order was made after a hearing in person, which both parties attended.

It would not be appropriate or fair to the tenant to grant a rehearing to effectively give the landlord a second opportunity to present his case.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4538431 — Tenancy dispute at 21 High Road, Glenfield, Auckland 0629

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4538431 — Tenancy dispute at 21 High Road, Glenfield, Auckland 0629

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