What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5121368?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5121368?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5121368?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5121368?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11898902-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5121368?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5121368?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5121368?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5121368?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11898902-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat Flat 2, 148 James Street, Whakatane, Whakatane Tenancy Tribunal Case 5121368 — Rent arrears

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 12 March 2025, the Tribunal made an order for the tenancy to be terminated and the Tenant to pay rent arrears.
On 12 March 2025, Ms Russell applied for a rehearing on the grounds that she had recently relocated to a new home with her daughter that suffers from epilepsy. Her daughters condition requires constant care and consumes a lot of her time so she needed time to adjust. She also submitted there was a potential miscarriage of justice in that she had evidence that the Landlord was willing to reconcile the rent arrears that would involve reducing the rent and back pay of the rent. She also had evidence the rent arrears was incorrect and that the Landlord advised her she could remain at the property until 4 April 2025. She did not attend the hearing due to family circumstances and she did not complete her cross -application due to limited access to the internet and her daughters ongoing disability. Ms Russell also claimed she missed the Tribunals telephone call and attempted to call the Tribunal within 20 minutes however the phone call never connected.
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?

For the following reasons Natalia Russell has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
Ms Russell advised that she was unable to attend the hearing due to ongoing commitments to her daughter, who suffers from epilepsy. While this is noted, Ms Russell had the opportunity to request an adjournment in advance by providing appropriate medical evidence to support her inability to attend. She did not do so, nor did she attend the hearing to seek an adjournment in person. The Tribunal attempted to contact the Tenant by phone at the time of the hearing; however, she did not answer the call.
Ms Russell has submitted that she possesses evidence indicating the Landlord intended to reconcile the rent arrears and not proceed with termination. This claim is not relevant to the matter at hand. The Landlord retains the right to change their position and proceed with termination, particularly where substantial rent arrears have accrued.
Ms Russell submitted she missed the Tribunals telephone call and then attempted to call the Tribunal during the hearing. She referenced her call log, although this evidence was not presented to the Tribunal. She further submitted that, after being unable to make contact by phone, she sent an email indicating she was trying to connect. A copy of this email was provided and, upon review, it was sent at 4:17 PM—well after the hearing commenced at 3:30 PM. The Tenant explained she lost track of time due to moving and claimed she attempted to join by video. It is noted that the Tribunal attempted to contact the Tenant at the start of the hearing, and that the Notice of Hearing included details for video access. Based on the timestamp of the email, I find the Tenant did not attempt to contact the Tribunal until after the hearing had concluded. Had the email been sent at or shortly after the scheduled commencement time, it might have demonstrated an effort to participate at the allocated hearing time; however, the timing does not support this.
Ms Russell also stated she attempted to file a cross-application but was unsuccessful. The Tribunal cannot delay proceedings indefinitely to allow for the filing of a cross-application. This does not constitute sufficient grounds for the matter to be reheard.
The claim is dismissed.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 12 March 2025, the Tribunal made an order for the tenancy to be terminated and the Tenant to pay rent arrears.
On 12 March 2025, Ms Russell applied for a rehearing on the grounds that she had recently relocated to a new home with her daughter that suffers from epilepsy. Her daughters condition requires constant care and consumes a lot of her time so she needed time to adjust. She also submitted there was a potential miscarriage of justice in that she had evidence that the Landlord was willing to reconcile the rent arrears that would involve reducing the rent and back pay of the rent. She also had evidence the rent arrears was incorrect and that the Landlord advised her she could remain at the property until 4 April 2025. She did not attend the hearing due to family circumstances and she did not complete her cross -application due to limited access to the internet and her daughters ongoing disability. Ms Russell also claimed she missed the Tribunals telephone call and attempted to call the Tribunal within 20 minutes however the phone call never connected.
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?

For the following reasons Natalia Russell has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
Ms Russell advised that she was unable to attend the hearing due to ongoing commitments to her daughter, who suffers from epilepsy. While this is noted, Ms Russell had the opportunity to request an adjournment in advance by providing appropriate medical evidence to support her inability to attend. She did not do so, nor did she attend the hearing to seek an adjournment in person. The Tribunal attempted to contact the Tenant by phone at the time of the hearing; however, she did not answer the call.
Ms Russell has submitted that she possesses evidence indicating the Landlord intended to reconcile the rent arrears and not proceed with termination. This claim is not relevant to the matter at hand. The Landlord retains the right to change their position and proceed with termination, particularly where substantial rent arrears have accrued.
Ms Russell submitted she missed the Tribunals telephone call and then attempted to call the Tribunal during the hearing. She referenced her call log, although this evidence was not presented to the Tribunal. She further submitted that, after being unable to make contact by phone, she sent an email indicating she was trying to connect. A copy of this email was provided and, upon review, it was sent at 4:17 PM—well after the hearing commenced at 3:30 PM. The Tenant explained she lost track of time due to moving and claimed she attempted to join by video. It is noted that the Tribunal attempted to contact the Tenant at the start of the hearing, and that the Notice of Hearing included details for video access. Based on the timestamp of the email, I find the Tenant did not attempt to contact the Tribunal until after the hearing had concluded. Had the email been sent at or shortly after the scheduled commencement time, it might have demonstrated an effort to participate at the allocated hearing time; however, the timing does not support this.
Ms Russell also stated she attempted to file a cross-application but was unsuccessful. The Tribunal cannot delay proceedings indefinitely to allow for the filing of a cross-application. This does not constitute sufficient grounds for the matter to be reheard.
The claim is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5121368 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Flat 2, 148 James Street, Whakatane, Whakatane

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5121368 — Rent arrears at Unit/Flat Flat 2, 148 James Street, Whakatane, Whakatane

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