What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4647689?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4647689?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4647689?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4647689?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9630560-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4647689?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4647689?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4647689?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4647689?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9630560-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

11A Farmar Street, Mayfield, Blenheim 7201 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4647689 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended this remote teleconference hearing.

On 25 September 2023 the Tribunal made an order that the landlord pay $230.00 to the tenant in compensation. All other tenant applications were dismissed.

On 25 September 2023, the tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that ; • He did not receive the landlord’s documentary evidence until the hearing started. • He wasn’t allowed to speak or question the landlord’s evidence. • Photos provided by the landlord were taken by Frank Maxwell , who the tenant says has a trespass or der against him.

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 the tenant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

The landlord is not required to provide copies of its documentary evidence in advance. See Lwee v Tenancy Tribunal (2013) NZHC 1602 where the court held that all that is required is a general idea of the parties’ case. The defence raised by the landlord would have been apparent to the tenant prior to the hearing.

The tenant was given the opportunity to give evidence (which he did) and to cross examine the landlord, which he did, until he became frustrated and left the hearing prior to its conclusion. Leaving the hearing at that point was a matter for the tenant.

The third issue raised in the tenant’s application for a rehearing is not a matter that would allow the Tribunal to grant a rehearing.

Other issues were raised by the tenant during the course of the rehearing. They were not issues relating to the conduct of the hearing nor was it new evidence, which would not have reasonably been available to the tenant at the time of the hearing which may have altered the Tribunal’s decision. Simply not agreeing with the decision is not a ground for a rehearing.

The application for a rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended this remote teleconference hearing.

On 25 September 2023 the Tribunal made an order that the landlord pay $230.00 to the tenant in compensation. All other tenant applications were dismissed.

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 third issue raised in the tenant’s application for a rehearing is not a matter that would allow the Tribunal to grant a rehearing.

The application for a rehearing is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4647689 — Tenancy dispute at 11A Farmar Street, Mayfield, Blenheim 7201

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4647689 — Tenancy dispute at 11A Farmar Street, Mayfield, Blenheim 7201

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