What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5069848?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5069848?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5069848?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5069848?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12202322-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5069848?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5069848?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5069848?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5069848?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12202322-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

47 Beacon Hill Road, Strathmore Park, Wellington 6022 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5069848 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the teleconference hearing.

On 29 May 2025 the Tribunal made an order regarding the matters raised in the applicant’s application.

On 4 June the applicant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that: “The adjudicator did not review all evidence submitted, this was apparent in the hearing. I also have new evidence, including new air quality tests, that i would like to submit”.

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?

Although the applicant believes that all evidence was not considered before making the decision, I am satisfied that I considered all evidence prior to reaching a decision in this case. There were two hearings, the second being so that further evidence could be provided. The second hearing was on 5 May 2025. The decision was issued on 29 May 2025. In that 24 day period, time was taken to review all evidence, including recordings submitted by the applicant.

It has not been proved that the decision reflected that evidence had been overlooked.

The applicant has provided additional evidence in support of his claim. The evidence was evidence which could have been available at the time of the previous hearing. The new evidence may be grounds for a further application but is not grounds for a rehearing of the case concluded on 29 May 2025.

There is insufficient evidence of a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice having occurred in the Tribunal process and therefore a rehearing is not granted.

If the applicant lodged a further application regarding similar issues covered by this application, it would be preferable that the new application is set down before a different adjudicator. The applicant may include this request and copy of this order in the application.

Reasons

Both parties attended the teleconference hearing.

On 29 May 2025 the Tribunal made an order regarding the matters raised in the applicant’s application.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

It has not been proved that the decision reflected that evidence had been overlooked.

There is insufficient evidence of a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice having occurred in the Tribunal process and therefore a rehearing is not granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5069848 — Tenancy dispute at 47 Beacon Hill Road, Strathmore Park, Wellington 6022

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5069848 — Tenancy dispute at 47 Beacon Hill Road, Strathmore Park, Wellington 6022

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions