What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5062588?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5062588?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5062588?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5062588?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11856200-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5062588?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5062588?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5062588?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5062588?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11856200-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 19, 15 Bunyan Street, Waltham, Christchurch 8023 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5062588 — Exemplary damages

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

On 7 March 2025, the Tribunal made an order dismissing the tenants’ claim and ordering that they pay to the landlords the sum of $1,326.00.

On 13 March 2025, the tenants applied for a stay of the 7 March order and a rehearing. On 17 March 2025, an interim stay was granted until the rehearing application is heard and determined.

A rehearing hearing was held on 12 May 2025. Ms Beasley attended the hearing. She was represented by Mr Ball. Ms Kawala also attended.

Section 105(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) 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; or that there is new evidence that was not reasonably available at the first hearing.

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. Furthermore, a rehearing will not be granted just because a party is unhappy with the decision, to give a party a second opportunity to present their case, or as an alternative to an appeal.

The basis of the tenants’ application for rehearing is that they consider that my decision is wrong, in particular, my findings of fact and my application of the law. They also claim that the mention of Ms Kawala’s age (26 years) suggests that I was biased against the tenants who were older.

I am not satisfied that the tenants have established that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred or may have occurred. I accept that they are unhappy with my decision and would like to have it reconsidered but, as mentioned above, this is insufficient grounds to support an application for rehearing. I do not agree that by simply mentioning Ms Kawala’s age means that I was biased in any way against the tenants. The mention of her age was in the context of whether an award of exemplary damages be made against the landlords. It was relevant to my consideration of her intention to commit the unlawful act (late lodgement of the bond), in particular, her understanding of a landlord’s obligations under the Act. Her age had no bearing whatsoever on my decision on any of the other claims which do not require an assessment of a party’s intention. My decision on these claims were based entirely on the evidence before me.

The tenants’ application for rehearing is therefore dismissed and the interim stay of enforcement of the 7 March 2025 order is lifted.

Reasons

On 7 March 2025, the Tribunal made an order dismissing the tenants’ claim and ordering that they pay to the landlords the sum of $1,326.00.

On 13 March 2025, the tenants applied for a stay of the 7 March order and a rehearing. On 17 March 2025, an interim stay was granted until the rehearing application is heard and determined.

A rehearing hearing was held on 12 May 2025. Ms Beasley attended the hearing. She was represented by Mr Ball. Ms Kawala also attended.

The tenants’ application for rehearing is therefore dismissed and the interim stay of enforcement of the 7 March 2025 order is lifted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5062588 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 19, 15 Bunyan Street, Waltham, Christchurch 8023

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5062588 — Exemplary damages at Unit/Flat 19, 15 Bunyan Street, Waltham, Christchurch 8023

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