What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4556873?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4556873?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4556873?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4556873?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9307258-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4556873?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4556873?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4556873?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4556873?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9307258-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 3, 9 Angela Street, Upper Riccarton, Christchurch Tenancy Tribunal Case 4556873 — Tenancy dispute

Reasons

Mr Towler attended the hearing today.

Mr Manawatu did not attend. He had advised the Tribunal that he was unwell before the hearing.

On 5 July 2023 the Tribunal made orders relating to the tenancy at Flat 3, 9 Angela St.

On 12 July, Mr Towler applied for a rehearing of the Tribunal’s decision to dismiss the landlord’s claim for door damage and repair. The basis of the application was that the Tribunal had incorrectly considered or assessed evidence in relation to the damaged door. Put simply, Mr Towler claimed that the Tribunal’s decision in relation to the door was wrong.

The usual practice of the Tenancy Tribunal is that a rehearing application is considered by the original adjudicator who made the decision which the applicant is seeking to have reheard (Fetherston v Lee, DC North Shore, CIV- 2012-044-001127, 7 May 2013).

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.

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, a rehearing is not an alternative to an appeal: “[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.

It is clear that Mr Towler was unhappy with the decision. He spent considerable time going over the evidence presented at the last hearing and explaining how, in his view, a correct assessment of the evidence would have resulted in a different outcome.

Mr Towler summarised his complaint as being an error of process in that the evidence was not evaluated correctly. In reality, the complaint was that the Tribunal made an erroneous decision in finding that the tenant did not carelessly or intentionally cause the damage to the door. Such a complaint is a matter for appeal, not rehearing.

The application for rehearing is dismissed. The Tribunal’s decision of 5 July 2023 remains in effect.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.
The Tribunal’s decision of 5 July 2023 remains in effect.

Reasons

Mr Towler attended the hearing today.
Mr Manawatu did not attend. He had advised the Tribunal that he was unwell before the hearing.
On 5 July 2023 the Tribunal made orders relating to the tenancy at Flat 3, 9 Angela St.
On 12 July, Mr Towler applied for a rehearing of the Tribunal’s decision to dismiss the landlord’s claim for door damage and repair. The basis of the application was that the Tribunal had incorrectly considered or assessed evidence in relation to the damaged door. Put simply, Mr Towler claimed that the Tribunal’s decision in relation to the door was wrong.
The usual practice of the Tenancy Tribunal is that a rehearing application is considered by the original adjudicator who made the decision which the applicant is seeking to have reheard (Fetherston v Lee, DC North Shore, CIV- 2012-044-001127, 7 May 2013).
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.
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, a rehearing is not an alternative to an appeal: “[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.
It is clear that Mr Towler was unhappy with the decision. He spent considerable time going over the evidence presented at the last hearing and explaining how, in his view, a correct assessment of the evidence would have resulted in a different outcome.
Mr Towler summarised his complaint as being an error of process in that the evidence was not evaluated correctly. In reality, the complaint was that the Tribunal made an erroneous decision in finding that the tenant did not carelessly or intentionally cause the damage to the door. Such a complaint is a matter for appeal, not rehearing.
The application for rehearing is dismissed. The Tribunal’s decision of 5 July 2023 remains in effect.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4556873 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 3, 9 Angela Street, Upper Riccarton, Christchurch

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4556873 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 3, 9 Angela Street, Upper Riccarton, Christchurch

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions