What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4765437?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application for rehearing dated 19 March 2024 is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4765437?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4765437?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4765437?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10347670-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4765437?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application for rehearing dated 19 March 2024 is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4765437?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4765437?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4765437?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10347670-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

20 Wellington Street, Phillipstown, Christchurch 8011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4765437 — Exemplary damages

Order

The tenant’s application for rehearing dated 19 March 2024 is dismissed.
The Registrar is not to process any further application from the tenant relating to these applications without the approval of an adjudicator.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
On 19 March 2024 the Tribunal made an order that included an award against the tenant of $500 exemplary damages for unlawful use of the premises. It related to the tenant using, including smoking, cannabis at the premises. There is no dispute that he did so. His case was that his use of cannabis was lawful.
On 19 March the tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that he had, or would have, new evidence to that he was prescribed cannabis. He filed some additional documents with his application that I refer to below.
The landlord filed a rehearing application in relation to the same order.
On 5 April I issued an order dismissing the landlord’s rehearing application and adjourning the tenant’s rehearing application. At paragraph 18 of that order I stated, I also point out to the tenant that in terms of evidence I will expect to see a prescription from a medical practitioner of cannabis for smoking that covers the time that the tenant occupied the premises. A current prescription will not suffice.
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. Discussion and Decision
The documents that were filed with the tenant’s rehearing application were an acknowledgement from the Cannabis Clinic of an order dated 15 March 2024 from the tenant, an email from the Cannabis Clinic dated 18 March stating that the tenant needed to attend a consultation to ensure that he was safely prescribed the correct product and dosage, and another email from them dated 18 March attaching a tax receipt and a tax invoice to the tenant dated 15 March apparently for three cannabis products.
I note that the invoice for cannabis products predates the email requiring a consultation to ensure that the tenant was prescribed the correct product and dosage which would appear to be in the wrong order. The most likely explanation for that is that the Clinic issued the invoice on receipt of the order and then a doctor must approve the delivery of the product before it is sent. That then resulted in the email requiring a consultation.
During the hearing, both parties referred to documents relating to the tenant’s prescription(s) for cannabis products. I told them that I had not seen any such prescriptions. The tenant was adamant he had provided them. The landlord agreed that they had been provided but said they related to cannabis oil, not cannabis for smoking which he said was not legal in any circumstances. I asked that the parties provide the documents they were referring to so that I did not overlook something of relevance.
The landlord has provided a copy of the invoice referred to above.
The tenant has provided photographs of two packets labelled Takapuna Pharmacy. I note that the Cannabis Clinic is located in Takapuna. The labels refer to cannabis products to be taken orally (under the tongue) and they are dated 20 March 2024.
The tenant has also provided photographs of what may be a vaporiser and a letter from the Cannabis Clinic dated 24 March 2024 confirming that the tenant has been prescribed medicinal cannabis.
The documents from the tenant are new documents. They were not previously on the Tribunal file, and I had not seen them previously.
The relevant law is clear. A person in New Zealand can lawfully use cannabis only when it has been prescribed to them by a medical practitioner. Cannabis cannot be prescribed for smoking and smoking cannabis is not lawful under any circumstances.
In this case the tenant was smoking cannabis at the premises which was not lawful even if the tenant had been prescribed the cannabis.
In any case, there is no evidence that the tenant was prescribed the cannabis that he smoked at the premises. The only evidence that the tenant has provided of being prescribed cannabis dates from 20 March 2024, after the tenancy was terminated.
The tenant was invited to provide evidence that he had a prescription for cannabis during the tenancy and he has been given ample time to do so. He has not provided any such evidence and given that he has provided evidence of being prescribed cannabis after the tenancy was terminated, it is obvious that the evidence does not exist.
For these reasons the tenant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing and his application is dismissed.
The Tribunal has spent enough time on these applications and this order should be an end to it. I have therefore directed that any further application from the tenant relating to these applications is not to be processed without the approval of an adjudicator.

Order

The tenant’s application for rehearing dated 19 March 2024 is dismissed.
The Registrar is not to process any further application from the tenant relating to these applications without the approval of an adjudicator.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
On 19 March 2024 the Tribunal made an order that included an award against the tenant of $500 exemplary damages for unlawful use of the premises. It related to the tenant using, including smoking, cannabis at the premises. There is no dispute that he did so. His case was that his use of cannabis was lawful.
On 19 March the tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that he had, or would have, new evidence to that he was prescribed cannabis. He filed some additional documents with his application that I refer to below.
The landlord filed a rehearing application in relation to the same order.
On 5 April I issued an order dismissing the landlord’s rehearing application and adjourning the tenant’s rehearing application. At paragraph 18 of that order I stated, I also point out to the tenant that in terms of evidence I will expect to see a prescription from a medical practitioner of cannabis for smoking that covers the time that the tenant occupied the premises. A current prescription will not suffice.
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. Discussion and Decision
The documents that were filed with the tenant’s rehearing application were an acknowledgement from the Cannabis Clinic of an order dated 15 March 2024 from the tenant, an email from the Cannabis Clinic dated 18 March stating that the tenant needed to attend a consultation to ensure that he was safely prescribed the correct product and dosage, and another email from them dated 18 March attaching a tax receipt and a tax invoice to the tenant dated 15 March apparently for three cannabis products.
I note that the invoice for cannabis products predates the email requiring a consultation to ensure that the tenant was prescribed the correct product and dosage which would appear to be in the wrong order. The most likely explanation for that is that the Clinic issued the invoice on receipt of the order and then a doctor must approve the delivery of the product before it is sent. That then resulted in the email requiring a consultation.
During the hearing, both parties referred to documents relating to the tenant’s prescription(s) for cannabis products. I told them that I had not seen any such prescriptions. The tenant was adamant he had provided them. The landlord agreed that they had been provided but said they related to cannabis oil, not cannabis for smoking which he said was not legal in any circumstances. I asked that the parties provide the documents they were referring to so that I did not overlook something of relevance.
The landlord has provided a copy of the invoice referred to above.
The tenant has provided photographs of two packets labelled Takapuna Pharmacy. I note that the Cannabis Clinic is located in Takapuna. The labels refer to cannabis products to be taken orally (under the tongue) and they are dated 20 March 2024.
The tenant has also provided photographs of what may be a vaporiser and a letter from the Cannabis Clinic dated 24 March 2024 confirming that the tenant has been prescribed medicinal cannabis.
The documents from the tenant are new documents. They were not previously on the Tribunal file, and I had not seen them previously.
The relevant law is clear. A person in New Zealand can lawfully use cannabis only when it has been prescribed to them by a medical practitioner. Cannabis cannot be prescribed for smoking and smoking cannabis is not lawful under any circumstances.
In this case the tenant was smoking cannabis at the premises which was not lawful even if the tenant had been prescribed the cannabis.
In any case, there is no evidence that the tenant was prescribed the cannabis that he smoked at the premises. The only evidence that the tenant has provided of being prescribed cannabis dates from 20 March 2024, after the tenancy was terminated.
The tenant was invited to provide evidence that he had a prescription for cannabis during the tenancy and he has been given ample time to do so. He has not provided any such evidence and given that he has provided evidence of being prescribed cannabis after the tenancy was terminated, it is obvious that the evidence does not exist.
For these reasons the tenant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing and his application is dismissed.
The Tribunal has spent enough time on these applications and this order should be an end to it. I have therefore directed that any further application from the tenant relating to these applications is not to be processed without the approval of an adjudicator.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4765437 — Exemplary damages at 20 Wellington Street, Phillipstown, Christchurch 8011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4765437 — Exemplary damages at 20 Wellington Street, Phillipstown, Christchurch 8011

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions