What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4615730?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4615730?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4615730?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4615730?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9511367-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4615730?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4615730?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4615730?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4615730?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9511367-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

41 Church Crescent, Panmure, Auckland 1072 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4615730 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Boris Zimakalo the tenant and Mr Molloy and Ms Whitney as counsel for the executors.

On 26 July 2023, the Tribunal made an order for the Executors of the Estate of Mary Zimakalo to take possession of the premises at 41 Church Street, Panmure at the end of Friday 27 October 2023.

On 3 August 2023, Boris Zimakalo applied for a rehearing on the grounds that • He was taken advantage of by the Tribunal and lawyers. • He was confused by the documents given at the hearing. • He did not get a fair hearing. • He did not get enough time to prepare his case. • He forgot to give some evidence. • He received new evidence. • He was under a lot of pressure and very upset.

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 Boris Zimakalo has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing: (a)Boris Zimakalo went over similar information that was presented at the previous hearing in response to the Executor’s claim for possession. (b)The new information Boris Zimakalo points to is that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to make the decision it did as the premises was now a commercial premises and excluded from the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. (c)Boris Zimakalo now says he runs a commercial horticultural or similar business that provides for his substantial day to day living from the premises.

This information runs counter to the information he provided the Tribunal at the previous hearing where Boris Zimakalo stated he was on a benefit and had a small workshop (on the premises) where he made bird nesting boxes to make a little extra money.

Boris Zimakalo had ample opportunity to respond to the claim by the Executors at the previous hearing in July 2023. There is no new information that suggests there was a flaw in the hearing process that would lead to a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.

The application for re-hearing is dismissed. The original order of 26 July 2023 stands.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Mr Boris Zimakalo the tenant and Mr Molloy and Ms Whitney as counsel for the executors.

On 26 July 2023, the Tribunal made an order for the Executors of the Estate of Mary Zimakalo to take possession of the premises at 41 Church Street, Panmure at the end of Friday 27 October 2023.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

The application for re-hearing is dismissed. The original order of 26 July 2023 stands.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4615730 — Tenancy dispute at 41 Church Crescent, Panmure, Auckland 1072

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4615730 — Tenancy dispute at 41 Church Crescent, Panmure, Auckland 1072

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