What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5199732?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5199732?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5199732?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5199732?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12188674-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5199732?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5199732?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5199732?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5199732?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12188674-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

17A Greenhaven Avenue, Opaheke, Papakura 2113 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5199732 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, by telephone.
On 30/4/2025 the Tribunal dismissed the landlord’s application for variation of the fixed term tenancy agreement.
Subsequently on 6/5/2025 the landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that she had misunderstood the question at the hearing about whether her application was for a reduction in the term of the fixed term tenancy or a variation of the tenancy agreement.
The landlord stated she did not understand what was meant by the term “the contract”.
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”.
In the District Court judgement of Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, His Honour Judge Touhy confirmed that the words “substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice”, set a high standard, stating: “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. ... 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. 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 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 this 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 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.
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 the landlord has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing: a. The fact that the landlord disagrees with the decision is not a ground for a rehearing or to give her a second opportunity to present her case, b. The tenant did not want a rehearing, c. The fact that the Adjudicator asked the landlord and also the tenant questions is in line with the inquisitorial nature of the Tribunal process, d. While it is unfortunate that the landlord did not understand that a tenancy agreement is a contract between a landlord and tenant, she was clear at the initial hearing that she did not want the term of the tenancy reduced, only the agreement varied so she could increase the rent, e. The interests of justice require parties to put their best case forward at the hearing and the landlord had ample opportunity to do this, f. The landlord has not provided any new evidence which may have changed the outcome, even if the matter had been determined pursuant to section 66.
I consider no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred which justifies a rehearing.
The objective of the Tribunal is to determine expeditiously disputes arising between landlords and tenants.
A rehearing is not an alternative to an appeal. If the landlord is dissatisfied with the decision, then the appropriate course of action would have been for her to appeal the decision.
For the avoidance of doubt the Order of the Tribunal dated 30 April 2025 remains in full force and effect.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, by telephone.
On 30/4/2025 the Tribunal dismissed the landlord’s application for variation of the fixed term tenancy agreement.
Subsequently on 6/5/2025 the landlord applied for a rehearing on the grounds that she had misunderstood the question at the hearing about whether her application was for a reduction in the term of the fixed term tenancy or a variation of the tenancy agreement.
The landlord stated she did not understand what was meant by the term “the contract”.
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”.
In the District Court judgement of Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, His Honour Judge Touhy confirmed that the words “substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice”, set a high standard, stating: “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. ... 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. 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 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 this 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 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.
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 the landlord has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing: a. The fact that the landlord disagrees with the decision is not a ground for a rehearing or to give her a second opportunity to present her case, b. The tenant did not want a rehearing, c. The fact that the Adjudicator asked the landlord and also the tenant questions is in line with the inquisitorial nature of the Tribunal process, d. While it is unfortunate that the landlord did not understand that a tenancy agreement is a contract between a landlord and tenant, she was clear at the initial hearing that she did not want the term of the tenancy reduced, only the agreement varied so she could increase the rent, e. The interests of justice require parties to put their best case forward at the hearing and the landlord had ample opportunity to do this, f. The landlord has not provided any new evidence which may have changed the outcome, even if the matter had been determined pursuant to section 66.
I consider no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred which justifies a rehearing.
The objective of the Tribunal is to determine expeditiously disputes arising between landlords and tenants.
A rehearing is not an alternative to an appeal. If the landlord is dissatisfied with the decision, then the appropriate course of action would have been for her to appeal the decision.
For the avoidance of doubt the Order of the Tribunal dated 30 April 2025 remains in full force and effect.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5199732 — Tenancy dispute at 17A Greenhaven Avenue, Opaheke, Papakura 2113

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5199732 — Tenancy dispute at 17A Greenhaven Avenue, Opaheke, Papakura 2113

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions