What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4922618?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application for rehearing is declined.

How much money was awarded in case 4922618?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4922618?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4922618?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11698514-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4922618?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application for rehearing is declined.

How much money was awarded in case 4922618?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4922618?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4922618?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11698514-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

7A Kirton Street, Masterton, Masterton 5810 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4922618 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The tenant’s application for rehearing is declined.
The stay of enforcement is lifted.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider whether a rehearing should be granted in relation to an order issued by the Tribunal on 14 February 2025.
The background in this case is now long and involved. In very brief summary, the tenancy ended in November 2023. Various disputes arose between the parties, with each saying the other owes them money.
Both parties applied to the Tribunal for orders. A number of hearings have been scheduled and adjourned.
The last hearing scheduled was on 14 February 2025. About two hours prior to the start of the hearing, the tenant emailed the Tribunal to say she had been unwell for the past few days with a stomach upset, and could not attend. No medical evidence had been presented in relation to that request, nor an earlier request for an adjournment on similar the grounds the tenant was unwell (that request was granted). The application for adjournment was declined, and the hearing proceeded. I note that the landlord did attend the hearing, and opposed a further adjournment given the protracted nature of the proceeding.
On 21 February 2025 the tenant applied for a rehearing on the basis primarily that she was unwell, and also because she did agreed with the outcome of the hearing.
I directed that a hearing be scheduled to consider if a rehearing would be approved. In my order I set out the relevant legal considerations (as noted again below), and also noted the following:
In support of her request for a rehearing, Ms Lambert provided a general practitioner letter from Dr Freeman stating: This is to certify that Ms Megahan Lambert, b. 07 Mar 1972, of 9 Kirton Street, MASTERTON Kowhainz@xtra.co.nz was seen today for medical review. She booked this appointment on the 12th of February , but was unable to get in to see her regular doctor until 17th February. She is undergoing further investigation for some bowel issues, and her needed review of her heart medications.
I have ordered that a telephone hearing be convened so that I can hear from the tenant and landlord before I decide whether a rehearing will be granted.
However, it is fair that I raise with the tenant that the letter from Dr Freeman above, would fall well short of the evidence needed to prove a medical incapacity for attending the hearing. Certainly Dr Freeman records that Ms Lambert was undergoing investigations, and had a medication review, but there is no suggestion that Ms Lambert would be unable to have attended the hearing for medical reasons. To support grounds for approving a rehearing, I would need an explanation from the Doctor as to the medical reasons Ms Lambert was unable to attend the hearing. Ms Lambert could produce the consultation note from the appointment with the GP, or Dr Freeman could attend the hearing and give evidence that way.
Ms Lambert provided a further letter from Dr Lambert, which states in full: This is to certify that Ms Meghan Lambert...was seen on the 17 th of February 2025 for a medical issue. She had not attended a meeting on 14 th of February , reportedly due to diarrhoea ongoing from the 12 th of February at which date she booked the earliest available appointment with her usual GP (the 17 th ). She has been having ongoing investigation since this date. It was thus not thought to be appropriate for her to attend in person on the 14 th February due to this ongoing issue.
Ms Lambert declined to provide copies of her consultation notes.

SUBMISSIONS

The tenant’s position is that a rehearing should be granted. The tenant states that she has a medical condition that meant she could not attend. The tenant refers to a medical certificate which is dated 7 April 2025. The tenant considers that she has not had an opportunity to put her case forward.
In response, the landlord opposes the application for rehearing. The landlord considers that the tenant has had a reasonable opportunity to present her case.

ANALYSIS

The Tribunal has received an application for a rehearing, and therefore must decide whether a rehearing will be granted, and if so, on what terms.
Decisions issued by the Tribunal are binding on both parties, however the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) allows either party to apply for a rehearing. In particular section 105 of the RTA relates to rehearing’s. Subsection 1 confirms that: The Tribunal shall in all proceedings have the power to order a rehearing of the whole or any part of the proceedings on the ground that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur.
If a rehearing is granted, then the Tribunal would direct that the whole or part of the original hearing be held again.
The applicant need not establish an actual miscarriage of justice or substantial wrong, only that it may have occurred. However, in the District Court Judgment of Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, Judge Tuohy held that the statutory language set a high standard, and that: [18] ... They most obviously apply ... to cases of procedural error eg a hearing which takes place in the absence of a party who has not been given notice of it; the improper admission or rejection of evidence; misconduct by the adjudicator or by one of the parties or a witness. The words may also encompass the discovery of new and important evidence not previously available. [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.
As noted by Judge Christiansen in the District Court appeal of Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC 1993: In this Court’s view the Tribunal’s reasons for refusing a rehearing are correct. 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 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.
This case is finely balanced, but I am not persuaded there is sufficient evidence to grant a rehearing. While I accept that Ms Lambert likely had clinical grounds for attending her GP on or around 14 February, there is insufficient evidence to show she could not have attended the hearing. The onus to prove this sits with Ms Lambert.
Ms Lambert has declined to provide clinical notes which may have supported a condition to the extent that she could not reasonably attend the hearing. However Ms Lambert has provided a GP letter. When I consider that letter of 7 April 2025, that falls short of the GP presenting a medical opinion that the tenant could not attend the hearing. My impression of that letter is that the GP has presented what the tenant’s view of the situation was, as opposed to presenting a medical opinion as to an inability to attend the hearing
I have also considered if there is new evidence that would justify the granting of a rehearing, and find there is not. The tenant has not convinced me that there is evidence that she could not have obtained and presented prior to 14 February 2025 if acting with due diligence.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the Tenancy Tribunal expeditiously determine disputes between tenants and landlords, and I consider that requirement would not align with the approval of another hearing for these matters in this case.
The application for rehearing must be dismissed.

Order

The tenant’s application for rehearing is declined.
The stay of enforcement is lifted.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider whether a rehearing should be granted in relation to an order issued by the Tribunal on 14 February 2025.
The background in this case is now long and involved. In very brief summary, the tenancy ended in November 2023. Various disputes arose between the parties, with each saying the other owes them money.
Both parties applied to the Tribunal for orders. A number of hearings have been scheduled and adjourned.
The last hearing scheduled was on 14 February 2025. About two hours prior to the start of the hearing, the tenant emailed the Tribunal to say she had been unwell for the past few days with a stomach upset, and could not attend. No medical evidence had been presented in relation to that request, nor an earlier request for an adjournment on similar the grounds the tenant was unwell (that request was granted). The application for adjournment was declined, and the hearing proceeded. I note that the landlord did attend the hearing, and opposed a further adjournment given the protracted nature of the proceeding.
On 21 February 2025 the tenant applied for a rehearing on the basis primarily that she was unwell, and also because she did agreed with the outcome of the hearing.
I directed that a hearing be scheduled to consider if a rehearing would be approved. In my order I set out the relevant legal considerations (as noted again below), and also noted the following:
In support of her request for a rehearing, Ms Lambert provided a general practitioner letter from Dr Freeman stating: This is to certify that Ms Megahan Lambert, b. 07 Mar 1972, of 9 Kirton Street, MASTERTON Kowhainz@xtra.co.nz was seen today for medical review. She booked this appointment on the 12th of February , but was unable to get in to see her regular doctor until 17th February. She is undergoing further investigation for some bowel issues, and her needed review of her heart medications.
I have ordered that a telephone hearing be convened so that I can hear from the tenant and landlord before I decide whether a rehearing will be granted.
However, it is fair that I raise with the tenant that the letter from Dr Freeman above, would fall well short of the evidence needed to prove a medical incapacity for attending the hearing. Certainly Dr Freeman records that Ms Lambert was undergoing investigations, and had a medication review, but there is no suggestion that Ms Lambert would be unable to have attended the hearing for medical reasons. To support grounds for approving a rehearing, I would need an explanation from the Doctor as to the medical reasons Ms Lambert was unable to attend the hearing. Ms Lambert could produce the consultation note from the appointment with the GP, or Dr Freeman could attend the hearing and give evidence that way.
Ms Lambert provided a further letter from Dr Lambert, which states in full: This is to certify that Ms Meghan Lambert...was seen on the 17 th of February 2025 for a medical issue. She had not attended a meeting on 14 th of February , reportedly due to diarrhoea ongoing from the 12 th of February at which date she booked the earliest available appointment with her usual GP (the 17 th ). She has been having ongoing investigation since this date. It was thus not thought to be appropriate for her to attend in person on the 14 th February due to this ongoing issue.
Ms Lambert declined to provide copies of her consultation notes.

SUBMISSIONS

The tenant’s position is that a rehearing should be granted. The tenant states that she has a medical condition that meant she could not attend. The tenant refers to a medical certificate which is dated 7 April 2025. The tenant considers that she has not had an opportunity to put her case forward.
In response, the landlord opposes the application for rehearing. The landlord considers that the tenant has had a reasonable opportunity to present her case.

ANALYSIS

The Tribunal has received an application for a rehearing, and therefore must decide whether a rehearing will be granted, and if so, on what terms.
Decisions issued by the Tribunal are binding on both parties, however the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) allows either party to apply for a rehearing. In particular section 105 of the RTA relates to rehearing’s. Subsection 1 confirms that: The Tribunal shall in all proceedings have the power to order a rehearing of the whole or any part of the proceedings on the ground that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur.
If a rehearing is granted, then the Tribunal would direct that the whole or part of the original hearing be held again.
The applicant need not establish an actual miscarriage of justice or substantial wrong, only that it may have occurred. However, in the District Court Judgment of Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, Judge Tuohy held that the statutory language set a high standard, and that: [18] ... They most obviously apply ... to cases of procedural error eg a hearing which takes place in the absence of a party who has not been given notice of it; the improper admission or rejection of evidence; misconduct by the adjudicator or by one of the parties or a witness. The words may also encompass the discovery of new and important evidence not previously available. [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.
As noted by Judge Christiansen in the District Court appeal of Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC 1993: In this Court’s view the Tribunal’s reasons for refusing a rehearing are correct. 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 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.
This case is finely balanced, but I am not persuaded there is sufficient evidence to grant a rehearing. While I accept that Ms Lambert likely had clinical grounds for attending her GP on or around 14 February, there is insufficient evidence to show she could not have attended the hearing. The onus to prove this sits with Ms Lambert.
Ms Lambert has declined to provide clinical notes which may have supported a condition to the extent that she could not reasonably attend the hearing. However Ms Lambert has provided a GP letter. When I consider that letter of 7 April 2025, that falls short of the GP presenting a medical opinion that the tenant could not attend the hearing. My impression of that letter is that the GP has presented what the tenant’s view of the situation was, as opposed to presenting a medical opinion as to an inability to attend the hearing
I have also considered if there is new evidence that would justify the granting of a rehearing, and find there is not. The tenant has not convinced me that there is evidence that she could not have obtained and presented prior to 14 February 2025 if acting with due diligence.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the Tenancy Tribunal expeditiously determine disputes between tenants and landlords, and I consider that requirement would not align with the approval of another hearing for these matters in this case.
The application for rehearing must be dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4922618 — Tenancy dispute at 7A Kirton Street, Masterton, Masterton 5810

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4922618 — Tenancy dispute at 7A Kirton Street, Masterton, Masterton 5810

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

SUBMISSIONS

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

SUBMISSIONS

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions