What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4769377?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4769377?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4769377?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4769377?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10574014-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4769377?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4769377?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4769377?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4769377?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10574014-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

38A Pinedale Place, Henderson, Auckland 0610 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4769377 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the rehearing-consideration hearing.

On 23 April 2024 the Tribunal made an order terminating the tenancy of Charlotte Hickey and ordering rent arrears.

On 23 April 2024 Charlotte Hickey applied for a rehearing on the grounds that she failed to attend at the scheduled time because her bus was late, and she had important information to present to the Tribunal.

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?

In today’s rehearing-consideration hearing Ms Hickey enlarged on the reason why she was late to the hearing. She stated that the bus she intended to catch did not arrive and rather than wait 10 minutes for the next bus, she took a different bus and then ran the final distance to the Court.

No notice was forwarded to the Tribunal by Ms Hickey to alert the Tribunal to Ms Hickey’s problems or requesting a delayed start time or an adjournment.

In the case of Kawaya v Waikato Property Rentals [MA 100/02] 10 October 2002 His Honour Maze J found that no substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred as a result of their being unable to attend due to lateness caused by traffic problems: Mr and Mrs Kawaya arrived late for that hearing - some 10 minutes late - and the explanation given for that was that they had struck difficulties with parking and traffic. They have brought now an appeal against the refusal of the application for rehearing, and the original decision, and the reasons they give are these. A substantial miscarriage of justice would occur if they were not given the opportunity to be heard on their rehearing application. As to that, I am satisfied they had due notice and sufficient opportunity to attend, and in the circumstances I do not consider that an appeal should succeed against the decision refusing the rehearing.

The issue of lateness caused by traffic problems in that case is on point with Ms Hickey’s situation in this case.

Mr Prasad for the landlord opposed a rehearing on the basis that a full hearing had already been conducted and Ms Hickey had not attended.

Because Ms Hickey has not persuaded me that a miscarriage of justice has occurred, a rehearing is not granted.

Reasons

Both parties attended the rehearing-consideration hearing.

On 23 April 2024 the Tribunal made an order terminating the tenancy of Charlotte Hickey and ordering rent arrears.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

No notice was forwarded to the Tribunal by Ms Hickey to alert the Tribunal to Ms Hickey’s problems or requesting a delayed start time or an adjournment.

The issue of lateness caused by traffic problems in that case is on point with Ms Hickey’s situation in this case.

Mr Prasad for the landlord opposed a rehearing on the basis that a full hearing had already been conducted and Ms Hickey had not attended.

Because Ms Hickey has not persuaded me that a miscarriage of justice has occurred, a rehearing is not granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4769377 — Rent arrears at 38A Pinedale Place, Henderson, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4769377 — Rent arrears at 38A Pinedale Place, Henderson, Auckland 0610

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions