What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5274581?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5274581?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5274581?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5274581?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12965722-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5274581?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5274581?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5274581?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5274581?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12965722-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

34 Waller Avenue, Bucklands Beach, Auckland 2012 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5274581 — Rent arrears

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 5 November 2025 the Tribunal made an order for rent arrears, outgoings and exemplary damages against the landlord.
On 11 November 2025, the tenants applied for a rehearing on the grounds that: a. The rent arrears claimed by the landlord and awarded were incorrect, in that: i. The tenancy end date was incorrect. ii. The rent arrears claimed did not consider the one week rent paid in advance. iii. The evidence provided by the landlord was inadequate. iv. There were discrepancies in the documents provided by the landlord. b. The exemplary damages awarded to the tenants were too low in respect of the broken oven and should be recalculated.
The tenants provided written and oral submissions in support of the rehearing application. They also referred to advice received during the mediation process and a NZ Herald article. However, I note that the mediation process is a confidential process, including advice and comments made during the mediation by any parties.
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.”
The High Court in Angelo v Lehr [2022] NZHC 3033 confirmed that it was not a miscarriage of justice to decline a rehearing just because evidence was not considered at the original hearing, when that evidence could have been produced at the original hearing.
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 tenants have failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing: a. The objective of the Tribunal is to determine expeditiously disputes arising between landlords and tenants. b. Both parties attended the hearing and provided evidence on the issues in dispute. c. The interests of justice require parties to put their best foot forward at the hearing and both parties had an equal opportunity to do this. d. The tenants have not provided any new evidence that was not reasonably available at the first hearing and that may have affected the outcome. e. The fact that the tenants disagree or are unhappy with the decision is not a ground for a rehearing or to give a second opportunity to present their case. f. If the Tribunal was wrong in its findings of fact as advanced by the tenants (for example, it incorrectly calculated rent arrears or relied on insufficient evidence), this is also not a ground for a rehearing. A rehearing is not an alternative to an appeal.
For the avoidance of doubt, the Order of the Tribunal dated 5 November 2025 remains in full force and affect. R Harvey-Lane 16 January 2026

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
On 5 November 2025 the Tribunal made an order for rent arrears, outgoings and exemplary damages against the landlord.
On 11 November 2025, the tenants applied for a rehearing on the grounds that: a. The rent arrears claimed by the landlord and awarded were incorrect, in that: i. The tenancy end date was incorrect. ii. The rent arrears claimed did not consider the one week rent paid in advance. iii. The evidence provided by the landlord was inadequate. iv. There were discrepancies in the documents provided by the landlord. b. The exemplary damages awarded to the tenants were too low in respect of the broken oven and should be recalculated.
The tenants provided written and oral submissions in support of the rehearing application. They also referred to advice received during the mediation process and a NZ Herald article. However, I note that the mediation process is a confidential process, including advice and comments made during the mediation by any parties.
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.”
The High Court in Angelo v Lehr [2022] NZHC 3033 confirmed that it was not a miscarriage of justice to decline a rehearing just because evidence was not considered at the original hearing, when that evidence could have been produced at the original hearing.
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 tenants have failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing: a. The objective of the Tribunal is to determine expeditiously disputes arising between landlords and tenants. b. Both parties attended the hearing and provided evidence on the issues in dispute. c. The interests of justice require parties to put their best foot forward at the hearing and both parties had an equal opportunity to do this. d. The tenants have not provided any new evidence that was not reasonably available at the first hearing and that may have affected the outcome. e. The fact that the tenants disagree or are unhappy with the decision is not a ground for a rehearing or to give a second opportunity to present their case. f. If the Tribunal was wrong in its findings of fact as advanced by the tenants (for example, it incorrectly calculated rent arrears or relied on insufficient evidence), this is also not a ground for a rehearing. A rehearing is not an alternative to an appeal.
For the avoidance of doubt, the Order of the Tribunal dated 5 November 2025 remains in full force and affect. R Harvey-Lane 16 January 2026

Tenancy Tribunal case 5274581 — Rent arrears at 34 Waller Avenue, Bucklands Beach, Auckland 2012

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5274581 — Rent arrears at 34 Waller Avenue, Bucklands Beach, Auckland 2012

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