What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5005570?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application for rehearing is not proven and is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5005570?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5005570?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5005570?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12052343-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5005570?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s application for rehearing is not proven and is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 5005570?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5005570?

The primary dispute was Healthy homes. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5005570?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12052343-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

80 Broomfields Road, Whitford, RD 1, Whitford 2571 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5005570 — Healthy homes

Order

The landlord’s application for rehearing is not proven and is dismissed.
The stay of proceeding lapses, and the order of the 24 April 2025 is in full effect and can be enforced.
The landlord may file a new claim for garden maintenance as part of any claim for vacated damages now that the tenancy has ended.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on the 1 July 2025.
This was a hearing of the landlord’s application for a rehearing.
This substantive claim was heard by me on the 4 March 2025 after three hearings held on the 19 December 2024, and two full day hearings on the 4 and 5 March 2025.I reserved my decision and issued the decision on the 24 April 2025. The delay between hearing and the decision was due to the volume of evidence and claims that needed to be considered. This is evidenced in the length of the written decision.
On the 28 April 2025 the landlord filed her application for a rehearing.
I granted a stay of proceedings until the rehearing consideration hearing could be heard on the 1 May 2025.
The landlord has filed extensive evidence and submissions in support of her application for a rehearing, then tenants have also submitted written submissions and responses.
I confirm that before issuing this decision I have carefully read and considered the evidence and submissions filed by both parties. The law relating to rehearings in 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”.
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. 1 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.
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 1 Yogeswaran v Doubletree Properties Ltd [2021] NZDC 15704 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.
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.
As noted by Judge Christiansen in the District Court appeal of Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC. 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.
The High Court has confirmed that it is not a miscarriage of justice to decline rehearing just because evidence was not considered at original hearing, when that evidence could have been produced at original hearing. 2 Analysis and submissions.
The landlord has submitted the following grounds for rehearing in her application dated 28 April 2025 these were: a. Improperly admitted and rejected evidence. 2 Angelo v Lehr [2022] NZHC 3033 b. Law of equality, natural justice c. New evidence d. Tenancy Act clause.
. Ms Ye submitted extensive written submissions and made oral submissions at the rehearing consideration hearing held on 1 July, those submissions and grounds can be summarised as follows: a. That I did not consider or determine all the claims because I did not make determinations on the landlord’s claims in respect to a broken window/s and garden maintenance. b. That I did not determine a claim for exemplary damages for “Intentional unlawful and malicious act by tenant” damaging structure on paddock and overfill paddock, spreading rumours with untrue statements, intentional disposal of wipes down drainpipe and discrimination. c. That I did not consider properly the landlord’s claims in respect of the fill: i.That I did not consider all the evidence properly, including valuation evidence. ii.That I did not fully appreciate the extent of the damage. iii.That the landlord has new evidence to show that the tenants continued to fill the land even after the landlord and the Council told the tenants to stop. d. That I did not properly consider the landlord’s claim in respect of the waste drain: i.That I improperly ignored evidence and ii.I based a decision on assumption. e. That I improperly decided the tenant’s claims relating to water, as: i.The tenant did not prove (by water testing) that the water was safe to drink. ii.That the tenant provided no evidence that they brought bottled water, the landlord says she has seen no evidence of bottled water in her visits to the property, and that the tenants told her that they had to ‘boil’ the water. iii.That the landlord has since the hearing the hearing completed water testing at the property which shows that the water is safe to drink. f. That I did not allow the landlord sufficient opportunity to rebut the tenants’ claims for breaches of Healthy Homes Standards, and in particular: i.The landlord had only seen the tenants’ Healthy Homes report at or shortly before the hearing, and therefore had insufficient time or ability to properly respond. ii.That the landlord has evidence that shows that the insulation was at standard. iii.That the landlord has tried to remedy problems between the date of the hearing and the decision, but that the tenant did not allow access to the property. g. That the decision relating on the hot water cylinder was incorrect because: i.The ruling was based on an assumption. ii.That I improperly ignored evidence. iii.The tenants did not provide any evidence to support their claims that the hot water cylinder used more electricity. iv.That there is new evidence in particular the evidence rom Cylinder Direct as to what caused the hot water cylinder to fail. h. That the amounts awarded should not have been made because the landlord has not been given a sufficient opportunity to remedy breaches before compensation or exemplary damages orders were made.
Having considered all the evidence, I decline the rehearing application in full. My reasons include: a. Many of the grounds advanced by the landlord in written submissions and at the hearing are that the Tribunal’s determinations were wrong, because of the weight given to evidence, that assumptions were made or that evidence was improperly ignored. These grounds are essentially challenges to the Tribunal’s factual determination and the reasoning behind them. The landlord is saying the Tribunal got it wrong or could not have reached the conclusions it did on the evidence available to it. Following the decisions of the higher courts noted above, those grounds are matters for appeal, not rehearing applications. b. The evidence the landlord submits as new evidence could have and should have been obtained before the hearing. There were no reasons given that this evidence could not have been obtained in support of the landlord’s claims or defence of the tenant’s claims before the hearing. Ms Ye knew what the tenants’ claims were well in advance of the hearing, this is shown by her filing extensive submissions and evidence in response to those claims. 3 If Ms Ye had wanted to obtain the evidence she now submits, in support of her claim she had a reasonable opportunity to do so. c. I do not consider that Ms Ye had insufficient time to consider the tenants’ claims in respect of the Healthy Homes report. The tenants confirmed at the first hearing in December 2024 that they were making an application for breaches of the Healthy Homes standards and that is recorded in my adjournment order of the same date. The tenants submitted the Healthy Homes Report to the Tribunal ion the 17 February 2024, Ms Ye addressed it in her submissions filed as “tenant claim 5063125 part 2” filed on the 20 February 2025. Ms Ye was also given sufficient opportunity at the hearing to make submissions and give evidence on the tenants’ claims for breaches of the Healthy Homes Standards. d. The landlord’s submission that the tenant had not proven that they used bottled water, or that they had incurred the extra electricity costs, are factual determinations on evidence and therefore matters for appeal. I also record that I preferred the tenant’s oral testimony when considering these matters. e. That many of the claimed breaches to which the landlord says that exemplary damages should be awarded were not determined to be ‘unlawful acts’ under the RTA and therefore exemplary damages could not be awarded even if the claims were proven (which they were not). f. I do not accept the landlord’s submission that the compensation and rent abatement should only take effect from the date of the decision not the date of the hearing because the landlord tried to remedy some of the breaches. Again, the date that compensation or exemplary damages applies is a determination by the Tribunal and if the party is unhappy with that decision, it is a matter for appeal not rehearing. g. I accept that I did not determine the landlord’s claims for broken glass and for garden maintenance. However, as the tenancy has ended and the landlord tells me that she intends to file a claim for vacated damages, then I consider that these claims can be refiled if need be (the landlord tells me that the glass claim has been resolved) and determined with the vacated damages claim.
As I have declined the rehearing application the stay of proceedings is lifted, and the order dated 24 April can be enforced.
I understand that the tenants continued to pay full rent from the 1 May 2025 to the end of the tenancy, as they understood that to be the correct process as the 3 Especially the submissions entitled tenant claims 5063125 part 2 dated 20 February 2025. stay was in effect. The landlord should recalculate the rent in accordance with my decision of the 24 April 2025.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5005570 — Healthy homes at 80 Broomfields Road, Whitford, RD 1, Whitford 2571

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5005570 — Healthy homes at 80 Broomfields Road, Whitford, RD 1, Whitford 2571

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