What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4681133?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4681133?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4681133?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4681133?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10360107-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4681133?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4681133?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4681133?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4681133?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10360107-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

20 Thackers Quay, Woolston, Christchurch 8023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4681133 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

These applications were heard over two days on 29 January 2024 and 7 March 2024.
On 29 January 2024, the Tribunal made directions orders addressing evidence, document management and procedure.
The substantive decision was issued on 2 April 2024. Each party was awarded some compensation. Many of the claims (of both parties) were dismissed.
On 5 April 2024, the tenants applied for a rehearing on the grounds that a miscarriage of justice had occurred. The rehearing hearing was held on 9 May 2024. Both parties attended.
The tenants had provided a comprehensive written submission with their application for rehearing. Not all issues in the written submission were advanced in oral submission at the hearing, but all have been considered by the Tribunal in reaching this decision. Rehearing – General Principles
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.
As noted by Judge Christiansen in the District Court appeal of Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC 1993: “Rehearings are about challenges to processes and procedures and are not about what the adjudicator found or the decisions the adjudicator made.”
A rehearing may also be granted where there is new evidence that was not reasonably available, to that party, 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.”
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. In Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, the District Court stated: “[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. Tenant’s Application
The tenants claim that evidence was not allowed to be presented, was ignored or excluded both during the hearing or afterwards. They say that if the evidence had been considered, then the Tribunal would have reached a different outcome. Much of the tenant’s oral submission at the rehearing hearing was directed towards to the landlord’s claims and alleged errors made by the Tribunal in finding liability (for some damaged items) and quantifying loss.
It is important to note that there is a difference between refusing to hear evidence and rejecting evidence that has been presented to the Tribunal. The first may give rise to rehearing, the second is matter for appeal.
The tenants submitted extensive evidence at the original hearing (both oral and documentary). I read and considered all the documentary evidence submitted by both parties, which contributed to the delay in releasing the original decision.
The landlord estimates that the tenant spoke for 80 to 90% of the original hearing time. While it may not have been that high, the landlord is correct in recording that the tenant’s evidence and submission took most of the hearing time. The tenant had ample opportunity to respond to the landlord claims and present their own.
Much of the rehearing was spent by the tenant reiterating points made at the original hearing regarding its view of the correct approach to quantifying loss and explaining why it believes the evidence shows that it was not liable for some damage. The arguments made by the tenant in support of rehearing amount to a submission that the Tribunal was wrong on the facts and/or was mistaken about what it needed to decide. The tenant has not persuaded me that that is the case. 1 More significantly, that would not be grounds for a rehearing but could have formed the basis for an appeal to the District Court.
I have considered whether the tenants have identified any error in process which may give rise to a right of rehearing. 1 For example, refer to the tenants’ submission in relation to the Bond. The tenant disputes that there is evidence that the landlord advised the Bond Centre that the Bond was in dispute. That email evidence was clearly provided at the first hearing and was referred to again by the landlord at the rehearing hearing.
The tenant claims that it was prevented from giving evidence at the original hearing. Yet, all of the evidence referred to during the rehearing hearing, had been presented at the original hearing.
There were times during the original hearing when one of the tenants was reminded to focus her evidence to the issues in the applications, and to moderate her language towards the landlord. That direction was appropriate and consistent with s97(6) RTA which provides that the Tribunal has the power to refuse any evidence or submission that it irrelevant or repetitious.
The tenant claims that she was prevented from giving medical evidence at the first hearing. I do not accept that submission. The tenant brought medication to the hearing and referred to it in her evidence. The medication itself is not capable of being kept at Court as evidence. She did not provide any corroborative medical reports from Health Professionals either at the initial hearing or at the rehearing.
The tenant also claims that it was prevented from describing the actions of the landlord. The tenant used generic terms such as mean and aggressive to describe the landlord, so was asked several times to describe exactly what the landlord said or did. The tenants both responded to those questions, with differing degrees of specificity, and their answers were considered.
One of the tenants also claims that reference to her in the decision reflects impartiality by the Tribunal. That is not the case. There were two named tenants in the application. Reference to one is simply a record of what that witness said during the hearing and is not inappropriate.
I have considered the grounds advanced by the tenants for why a rehearing should be granted. My assessment is that it has not been established to the balance of probabilities that there was any error in process or procedure, or any new evidence which may have affected the outcome.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

These applications were heard over two days on 29 January 2024 and 7 March 2024.
On 29 January 2024, the Tribunal made directions orders addressing evidence, document management and procedure.
The substantive decision was issued on 2 April 2024. Each party was awarded some compensation. Many of the claims (of both parties) were dismissed.
On 5 April 2024, the tenants applied for a rehearing on the grounds that a miscarriage of justice had occurred. The rehearing hearing was held on 9 May 2024. Both parties attended.
The tenants had provided a comprehensive written submission with their application for rehearing. Not all issues in the written submission were advanced in oral submission at the hearing, but all have been considered by the Tribunal in reaching this decision. Rehearing – General Principles
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.
As noted by Judge Christiansen in the District Court appeal of Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC 1993: “Rehearings are about challenges to processes and procedures and are not about what the adjudicator found or the decisions the adjudicator made.”
A rehearing may also be granted where there is new evidence that was not reasonably available, to that party, 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.”
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. In Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, the District Court stated: “[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. Tenant’s Application
The tenants claim that evidence was not allowed to be presented, was ignored or excluded both during the hearing or afterwards. They say that if the evidence had been considered, then the Tribunal would have reached a different outcome. Much of the tenant’s oral submission at the rehearing hearing was directed towards to the landlord’s claims and alleged errors made by the Tribunal in finding liability (for some damaged items) and quantifying loss.
It is important to note that there is a difference between refusing to hear evidence and rejecting evidence that has been presented to the Tribunal. The first may give rise to rehearing, the second is matter for appeal.
The tenants submitted extensive evidence at the original hearing (both oral and documentary). I read and considered all the documentary evidence submitted by both parties, which contributed to the delay in releasing the original decision.
The landlord estimates that the tenant spoke for 80 to 90% of the original hearing time. While it may not have been that high, the landlord is correct in recording that the tenant’s evidence and submission took most of the hearing time. The tenant had ample opportunity to respond to the landlord claims and present their own.
Much of the rehearing was spent by the tenant reiterating points made at the original hearing regarding its view of the correct approach to quantifying loss and explaining why it believes the evidence shows that it was not liable for some damage. The arguments made by the tenant in support of rehearing amount to a submission that the Tribunal was wrong on the facts and/or was mistaken about what it needed to decide. The tenant has not persuaded me that that is the case. 1 More significantly, that would not be grounds for a rehearing but could have formed the basis for an appeal to the District Court.
I have considered whether the tenants have identified any error in process which may give rise to a right of rehearing. 1 For example, refer to the tenants’ submission in relation to the Bond. The tenant disputes that there is evidence that the landlord advised the Bond Centre that the Bond was in dispute. That email evidence was clearly provided at the first hearing and was referred to again by the landlord at the rehearing hearing.
The tenant claims that it was prevented from giving evidence at the original hearing. Yet, all of the evidence referred to during the rehearing hearing, had been presented at the original hearing.
There were times during the original hearing when one of the tenants was reminded to focus her evidence to the issues in the applications, and to moderate her language towards the landlord. That direction was appropriate and consistent with s97(6) RTA which provides that the Tribunal has the power to refuse any evidence or submission that it irrelevant or repetitious.
The tenant claims that she was prevented from giving medical evidence at the first hearing. I do not accept that submission. The tenant brought medication to the hearing and referred to it in her evidence. The medication itself is not capable of being kept at Court as evidence. She did not provide any corroborative medical reports from Health Professionals either at the initial hearing or at the rehearing.
The tenant also claims that it was prevented from describing the actions of the landlord. The tenant used generic terms such as mean and aggressive to describe the landlord, so was asked several times to describe exactly what the landlord said or did. The tenants both responded to those questions, with differing degrees of specificity, and their answers were considered.
One of the tenants also claims that reference to her in the decision reflects impartiality by the Tribunal. That is not the case. There were two named tenants in the application. Reference to one is simply a record of what that witness said during the hearing and is not inappropriate.
I have considered the grounds advanced by the tenants for why a rehearing should be granted. My assessment is that it has not been established to the balance of probabilities that there was any error in process or procedure, or any new evidence which may have affected the outcome.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4681133 — Tenancy dispute at 20 Thackers Quay, Woolston, Christchurch 8023

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4681133 — Tenancy dispute at 20 Thackers Quay, Woolston, Christchurch 8023

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