What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4628209?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4628209?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4628209?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4628209?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9797954-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4628209?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4628209?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4628209?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4628209?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9797954-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 1, 47 Kenderdine Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 4628209 — Tenancy dispute

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

On 8 September 2023, the Tribunal made an order for the Tenant to pay the Landlord compensation.

On 20 September 2023, the Tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that since the hearing, she found dates of photographs she had submitted at the original hearing and wanted this information submitted and she was busy with work commitments in preparing for 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.

Section 105(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the which 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”.

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 Jemma Trust v Rutherford (DC North Shore, CIV-2009-044-2056, 11 December 1999), the District Court quoted an extract from the Court of Appeal outlining the relevant considerations: The principles upon which further evidence is admitted are designed to balance the interests of the person seeking to adduce such evidence on the one hand with the interests of the opposite party is on the other. They are also designed to reflect the public interest in ensuring, so far as is possible, that parties put up their best case at trial. Any other approach would be very wasteful of public resources. The conventional requirements are that the further evidence must be fresh, it must be credible and it must be cogent. Evidence is not regarded as fresh if it could with reasonable diligence have been produced at the trial....While the absence of freshness is not an absolute disqualification, the criteria for admission in such circumstances must be very strict. In our view, when the evidence is not fresh it should not be admitted unless the circumstances are exceptional and the grounds compelling.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons, the Tenant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

The evidence the Tenant presented was not fresh evidence as the photograph time stamp could have been discovered with reasonable diligence at the time of the original hearing. The Tenant had figured out a new way of obtaining this information rather than the evidence being new. This evidence was reasonably available at the time of the original hearing.

Even in considering the Tenant’s photographs of the carpet at the start of the tenancy, the photographs taken by the Landlord at the end of the tenancy were mainly of different stains. The Landlord showed stains by the stairs, stained spots by the lino, stains by the doorway and dark spots by the skirting which the Tenant had no photograph to compare to.

For these reasons the Tenant’s application for a rehearing is dismissed.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 8 September 2023, the Tribunal made an order for the Tenant to pay the Landlord compensation.
On 20 September 2023, the Tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that since the hearing, she found dates of photographs she had submitted at the original hearing and wanted this information submitted and she was busy with work commitments in preparing for 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.
Section 105(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the which 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”.
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 Jemma Trust v Rutherford (DC North Shore, CIV-2009-044-2056, 11 December 1999), the District Court quoted an extract from the Court of Appeal outlining the relevant considerations: The principles upon which further evidence is admitted are designed to balance the interests of the person seeking to adduce such evidence on the one hand with the interests of the opposite party is on the other. They are also designed to reflect the public interest in ensuring, so far as is possible, that parties put up their best case at trial. Any other approach would be very wasteful of public resources. The conventional requirements are that the further evidence must be fresh, it must be credible and it must be cogent. Evidence is not regarded as fresh if it could with reasonable diligence have been produced at the trial....While the absence of freshness is not an absolute disqualification, the criteria for admission in such circumstances must be very strict. In our view, when the evidence is not fresh it should not be admitted unless the circumstances are exceptional and the grounds compelling.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons, the Tenant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
The evidence the Tenant presented was not fresh evidence as the photograph time stamp could have been discovered with reasonable diligence at the time of the original hearing. The Tenant had figured out a new way of obtaining this information rather than the evidence being new. This evidence was reasonably available at the time of the original hearing.
Even in considering the Tenant’s photographs of the carpet at the start of the tenancy, the photographs taken by the Landlord at the end of the tenancy were mainly of different stains. The Landlord showed stains by the stairs, stained spots by the lino, stains by the doorway and dark spots by the skirting which the Tenant had no photograph to compare to.
For these reasons the Tenant’s application for a rehearing is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4628209 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 1, 47 Kenderdine Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4628209 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 1, 47 Kenderdine Road, Papatoetoe, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions