What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5223562?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5223562?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5223562?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5223562?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12162310-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5223562?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5223562?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5223562?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5223562?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12162310-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

85 Norwood Drive, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5223562 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. Ms Fronda and Mr Iraia attended for the tenants, and Ms Pretorius attended for the landlord.

On 24 April 2025 the Tribunal made an order for the landlord to refund a rental overpayment to the tenants.

On 27 April 2025 Heather Pretorius applied for a rehearing on the grounds that she had been travelling at the time of the hearing and her telephone provider Spark, had been unable to connect the call for her to attend the hearing.

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?

In today’s hearing, the purpose of which was to determine whether or not a rehearing should be granted, Ms Pretorius stated that at the time of the hearing she was on a four-week trip to South Africa. She was aware that there was a difficulty in receiving calls as she had already been experiencing this during the trip. She was hopeful that the call would connect and she would be able to attend the hearing. Because of this she decided not to request an adjournment for the hearing. She also decided not to have the agent who was managing the tenancy while she was out of the country, attend. When she did not receive the call, she did not email the Registry to explain that she was having difficulties.

In my view this situation does not meet the test of a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice having occurred. There were avenues available to Ms Pretorius to request an adjournment to the hearing, or have an agent attend for her, but she chose not to engage these options. The result was that the hearing was held in her absence. Hearings come at a cost, and at some inconvenience to parties who do attend, and it is not uncommon to hear complaints about the amount of time it takes to get a hearing.

For the above reasons Heather Pretorius has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

I note that the tenants themselves did not oppose a rehearing. I have considered their views, but I am not persuaded they are sufficient to displace the legal test for granting a rehearing, which I determine hasn’t been met.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference. Ms Fronda and Mr Iraia attended for the tenants, and Ms Pretorius attended for the landlord.

On 24 April 2025 the Tribunal made an order for the landlord to refund a rental overpayment to the tenants.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the above reasons Heather Pretorius has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5223562 — Tenancy dispute at 85 Norwood Drive, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5223562 — Tenancy dispute at 85 Norwood Drive, Flat Bush, Auckland 2019

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