What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5208871?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5208871?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5208871?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5208871?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12161132-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5208871?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5208871?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5208871?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5208871?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12161132-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

12 Iona Place, Sockburn, Christchurch 8042 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5208871 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by telephone. Both parties attended.

On 22 May 2025 the Tribunal made an order for payment of compensation by the tenant following the end of the tenancy.

On 2 July 2025 the tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that she had not received proper notice of the application, that she had a reason for not attending and that the award against her was excessive.

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.

For the following reasons I find that the tenant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing and therefore her application must be dismissed.

Notice of the application and the application itself were sent to the tenant well before the hearing by email and so service was in accordance with the Act. The tenant said that she was not checking her emails but there is good evidence that she received reasonable notice of the hearing by other means.

There is also evidence that the tenant had chosen not to attend the hearing. She had indicated to the landlords that she did not intend attending after she had received details of the claims against her.

The tenant has given a reason for not attending the hearing on the day but there was no application for an adjournment and, as I have found, she had no intention of attending in any case.

Where a party has chosen not to attend a hearing and then seeks a rehearing because they are unhappy with the result, there would need to be a very good reason, unrelated to the non-attendance, for a rehearing to be granted. Parties who are voluntarily absent from a hearing will not normally be allowed another hearing. Otherwise, hearings would routinely be duplicated at the expense of the other party and other users of the Tribunal.

There is no other compelling reason for a rehearing. The landlord’s claims were well supported by evidence, and it is unlikely that that another hearing would have a significantly different result.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by telephone. Both parties attended.

On 22 May 2025 the Tribunal made an order for payment of compensation by the tenant following the end of the tenancy.

For the following reasons I find that the tenant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing and therefore her application must be dismissed.

The tenant has given a reason for not attending the hearing on the day but there was no application for an adjournment and, as I have found, she had no intention of attending in any case.

There is no other compelling reason for a rehearing. The landlord’s claims were well supported by evidence, and it is unlikely that that another hearing would have a significantly different result.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5208871 — Tenancy dispute at 12 Iona Place, Sockburn, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5208871 — Tenancy dispute at 12 Iona Place, Sockburn, Christchurch 8042

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions