What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5132228?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5132228?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5132228?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5132228?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11580020-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5132228?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5132228?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5132228?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5132228?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11580020-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat 2, 22 Smith Street, Woolston, Christchurch 8062 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5132228 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was conducted remotely.
On 23 January 2025 the Tribunal made an order terminating Mr Gordon’s tenancy on the basis of assault.
On 18 February 2025 Mr Gordon applied for a rehearing on the grounds that he only got a warning letter, and it went straight to the Tribunal and he missed the hearing on 23 January 2025. Mr Gordon vacated the premises in accordance with the order prior to lodging his application for rehearing. In addition Mr Gordon provided a statement as to his version of events in which he admitted that he did assault the neighbour. A neighbour does not necessarily apply to only tenants of KO, but those living in the vicinity of the premises.
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 Mr Gordon did not attend the first hearing he had told the Senior Housing Support Manager that he assaulted the neighbour, and this is confirmed in the statement he provided in support of his application for rehearing. In the case of an alleged assault there is no obligation on a landlord to give warnings, or a certain number of notices, but they may apply straight to the Tribunal for termination of a tenancy. Such an order will be made if the claim is established. A claim of threatened or actual assault is one of the most serious claims that come before the Tribunal for determination.
Given the matters outlined in paragraph 7, it is inevitable that if a rehearing was granted the outcome would be same the same. In addition, as Mr Gordon has vacated the premises in the very unlikely scenario that Mr Gordon was successful in a rehearing, the outcome would be nugatory as Mr Gordon has vacated the tenancy.
I acknowledge Mr Gordon’s explanation of why he did not attend the hearing. He explained that he did try to enter the hearing via the video link, but technological difficulties meant he was unable to enter successfully. While the Tribunal did try to call Mr Gordon, he was trying to find somewhere in the house where he could take the call, but the calls had gone to answerphone before he was able to answer and the hearing proceeded in his absence. Given the evidence that was produced at the hearing and taking into account the matters outlined in paragraph 7, the Tribunal is satisfied that the claim Mr Gordon assaulted a neighbour was established.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was conducted remotely.

On 23 January 2025 the Tribunal made an order terminating Mr Gordon’s tenancy on the basis of assault.

On 18 February 2025 Mr Gordon applied for a rehearing on the grounds that he only got a warning letter, and it went straight to the Tribunal and he missed the hearing on 23 January 2025. Mr Gordon vacated the premises in accordance with the order prior to lodging his application for rehearing. In addition Mr Gordon provided a statement as to his version of events in which he admitted that he did assault the neighbour. A neighbour does not necessarily apply to only tenants of KO, but those living in the vicinity of the premises.

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 Mr Gordon did not attend the first hearing he had told the Senior Housing Support Manager that he assaulted the neighbour, and this is confirmed in the statement he provided in support of his application for rehearing. In the case of an alleged assault there is no obligation on a landlord to give warnings, or a certain number of notices, but they may apply straight to the Tribunal for termination of a tenancy. Such an order will be made if the claim is established. A claim of threatened or actual assault is one of the most serious claims that come before the Tribunal for determination.

Given the matters outlined in paragraph 7, it is inevitable that if a rehearing was granted the outcome would be same the same. In addition, as Mr Gordon has vacated the premises in the very unlikely scenario that Mr Gordon was successful in a rehearing, the outcome would be nugatory as Mr Gordon has vacated the tenancy.

I acknowledge Mr Gordon’s explanation of why he did not attend the hearing. He explained that he did try to enter the hearing via the video link, but technological difficulties meant he was unable to enter successfully. While the Tribunal did try to call Mr Gordon, he was trying to find somewhere in the house where he could take the call, but the calls had gone to answerphone before he was able to answer and the hearing proceeded in his absence. Given the evidence that was produced at the hearing and taking into account the matters outlined in paragraph 7, the Tribunal is satisfied that the claim Mr Gordon assaulted a neighbour was established.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5132228 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 2, 22 Smith Street, Woolston, Christchurch 8062

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5132228 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat 2, 22 Smith Street, Woolston, Christchurch 8062

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