What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4573849?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4573849?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4573849?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4573849?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9274452-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4573849?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4573849?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4573849?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4573849?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9274452-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

12A Sunhaven Avenue, Glenfield, Auckland 0629 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4573849 — Rent arrears

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by teleconference.

On 5 July 2023 the Tribunal made an order for termination of Mr Tague’s tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond.

On 13 July 2023, Mr McTague applied for a rehearing on the grounds that he did not receive notice of the hearing.

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 McTague has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing. • Missing a hearing or being late for a hearing is not a ground in itself for a rehearing. Mr McTague must show that the order made is substantially wrong or a miscarriage of justice has occurred. • Firstly, I am not satisfied that Mr McTague did not receive notification of the hearing. The landlord gave contrary evidence that it had been in contact with Mr McTague leading up to the hearing and it believes he was aware of the hearing or ought to have been aware of the hearing. The landlord has provided communication between the parties in support of their view. • In any event, even if I were to give Mr McTague the benefit of the doubt and accept that he did not receive proper notice of the hearing, he does not dispute that he was in rent arrears at the date of the hearing. This was the basis for the application. He was over 6 weeks in arrears at the date of the hearing. A termination order was therefore inevitable and did not constitute a miscarriage of justice. • Mr Tague’s reference to the tenancy premises being a family home and his family connection to the owner, are not relevant to the issue at hand. Nor is it a ground for a rehearing. • Mr Tague has not provided anything new to show that the order made on 5 July 2023 was wrong. • There is nothing in the rehearing application that would lead me to making a different decision. • I appreciate that Mr Tague’s personal circumstances are such that moving out will be difficult. While I acknowledge the Mr Tague’s position, his personal circumstances in and of themselves are not factors the Tribunal can take account of.

Accordingly, the application for rehearing is dismissed and the original order made on 5 July 2023 stands. The stay of proceedings is lifted, and the order of 5 July 2023 may be enforced henceforth.

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
The application for rehearing is dismissed and the stay of proceedings is lifted.
The order made on 5 July 2023 under application 4573849 stands.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by teleconference.
On 5 July 2023 the Tribunal made an order for termination of Mr Tague’s tenancy, rent arrears and refund of the bond.
On 13 July 2023, Mr McTague applied for a rehearing on the grounds that he did not receive notice of the hearing.
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 McTague has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing. • Missing a hearing or being late for a hearing is not a ground in itself for a rehearing. Mr McTague must show that the order made is substantially wrong or a miscarriage of justice has occurred. • Firstly, I am not satisfied that Mr McTague did not receive notification of the hearing. The landlord gave contrary evidence that it had been in contact with Mr McTague leading up to the hearing and it believes he was aware of the hearing or ought to have been aware of the hearing. The landlord has provided communication between the parties in support of their view. • In any event, even if I were to give Mr McTague the benefit of the doubt and accept that he did not receive proper notice of the hearing, he does not dispute that he was in rent arrears at the date of the hearing. This was the basis for the application. He was over 6 weeks in arrears at the date of the hearing. A termination order was therefore inevitable and did not constitute a miscarriage of justice. • Mr Tague’s reference to the tenancy premises being a family home and his family connection to the owner, are not relevant to the issue at hand. Nor is it a ground for a rehearing. • Mr Tague has not provided anything new to show that the order made on 5 July 2023 was wrong. • There is nothing in the rehearing application that would lead me to making a different decision. • I appreciate that Mr Tague’s personal circumstances are such that moving out will be difficult. While I acknowledge the Mr Tague’s position, his personal circumstances in and of themselves are not factors the Tribunal can take account of.
Accordingly, the application for rehearing is dismissed and the original order made on 5 July 2023 stands. The stay of proceedings is lifted, and the order of 5 July 2023 may be enforced henceforth.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4573849 — Rent arrears at 12A Sunhaven Avenue, Glenfield, Auckland 0629

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4573849 — Rent arrears at 12A Sunhaven Avenue, 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

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions