What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5279619?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5279619?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5279619?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5279619?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12290476-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5279619?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5279619?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5279619?

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

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5279619?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12290476-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

43 Lockheed Street, Hobsonville, Auckland 0618 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5279619 — Rent arrears

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by video. The tenant did not attend the hearing.

The tenant emailed the Tribunal at 10.09pm on the evening before the hearing advising that he would not be attending due to travel commitments. The tenant provided written submissions and asked for these to be considered at the hearing. The tenant’s email and submissions did not arrive for my consideration until 2 minutes before the hearing was to commence at 9.30am.

Section 92 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that; “Where notice of a hearing has been given to a party in accordance with section 91 and that party does not attend at the hearing, the Tribunal may hear and determine, or dismiss or adjourn, the matter in the absence of that party.”

Section 91AB of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that; “Despite anything to the contrary elsewhere in this Act, the Tribunal may decide a proceeding on the papers if the Tribunal considers it appropriate, except in the circumstances set out in subsection (2).”

The tenant did not ask for an adjournment or for the proceedings to be on the papers. Instead, he requested that his written submissions were considered in lieu of his attendance at the hearing. There was very little notice that the tenant would not attend the hearing that had been allocated two months earlier on 19 June 2025.

While the Tribunal could dismiss the application for rehearing due to the tenant’s absence given that it was his application, I have decided to consider the application on the papers with reference to the written submissions. If the tenant is in a similar position in the future, he should communicate earlier with the Tribunal as another Adjudicator may not deal with the matter in the same way. Application for rehearing

The application for rehearing filed by the tenant on 13 June 2025 sought a rehearing on the following grounds; (a) The Tribunal erred in its interpretation and application of the precedent set in G Sibilis v C Croft and R Byrt 1 ; (b) That the landlord contacted his employer both during the tenancy and shortly after its conclusion which he submits formed a continued pattern of harassment; and (c) That the Tribunal miscalculated the rent arrears.

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 fidings 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. 1 [2023] NZDC 26882 Breach of quiet enjoyment

The case of Sibilis was referred to in the order in relation to conduct which amounted to harassment after the tenant had left the tenancy. That conduct was a telephone call between the landlord and the tenant’s employer which took place in January 2025, after the tenancy ended. The order provided for an award of exemplary damages in relation to the phone call that took place during the tenancy sometime in December 2024.

The tenant submitted that the harassment began during the tenancy and extended beyond it. It was also submitted that the landlord’s actions constituted a serious breach of quiet enjoyment, and the award may have been underweighted. I expect that the tenant means that the award was not in proportion to the level of harassment.

At the hearing the landlord submitted a text message that she had received from one of the tenant’s flatmates on 15 December 2024. That message states; “I’m going to report Matt to Bayleys...I will report him anonymously.”

The landlord had not produced this text message at the substantive hearing because she said she forgot about it. The landlord submitted that she did not think she called the tenant’s employer during the tenancy and instead it may have been one of the other tenants who made the call anonymously.

It is unfortunate that this evidence was not available at the first hearing, but I consider that it was reasonably available, and the landlord could have produced it earlier. That evidence does not support the tenant’s application for rehearing.

The submission from the tenant that the Tribunal erred in its interpretation and application of the District Court decision Sibilis is not accepted. The District Court Judge in that decision referred to section 38(2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and confirmed that the court did not consider that there were grounds to make an award of exemplary damages where the respondents had already left the premises.

Section 38(2) provides; “The landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.”

The relevant wording in this section is “in the use of the premises by the tenant.” After the tenant has left there is no longer any use of the premises by the tenant. That is why an award cannot succeed after a tenant has left the premises.

The tenant claims that there was a continued pattern of harassment, but the reality is that the tenant had left the premises when the second call was made.

The tenant submitted that the award of exemplary damages was not sufficient however that is not grounds for a rehearing. Rent arrears

The tenant submits that rent was charged for an additional day that should not have been included.

The rent arrears award was to 12 January 2025 which the parties had agreed was the day that the tenancy would end and as recorded in the Tribunal order dated 12 December 2024 2 . The tenancy terminated and possession was granted to the landlord at 11.59pm on 12 January 2025.

The rent arrears correctly included 12 January 2025 in the calculation. The tenant had the right to occupy the tenancy until 11.59pm on that day.

The calculation of rent arrears was correct and therefore there is no ground for rehearing in relation to this issue. Rehearing and suppression

The tenant has failed to establish grounds for a rehearing.

Section 95A(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 states, “The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case.s application for rehearing are not successful.”

The tenant was not successful with his application for rehearing. While the tenant has requested suppression, I have not granted it because he was not successful with his application and after weighing the interests of the public against the tenant’s interests 3 I consider that a suppression order is not warranted. 2 3 Section 95A(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by video. The tenant did not attend the hearing.

Section 38(2) provides; “The landlord shall not cause or permit any interference with the reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy of the tenant in the use of the premises by the tenant.”

The tenant claims that there was a continued pattern of harassment, but the reality is that the tenant had left the premises when the second call was made.

The tenant submitted that the award of exemplary damages was not sufficient however that is not grounds for a rehearing. Rent arrears

The tenant submits that rent was charged for an additional day that should not have been included.

The rent arrears correctly included 12 January 2025 in the calculation. The tenant had the right to occupy the tenancy until 11.59pm on that day.

The calculation of rent arrears was correct and therefore there is no ground for rehearing in relation to this issue. Rehearing and suppression

The tenant has failed to establish grounds for a rehearing.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5279619 — Rent arrears at 43 Lockheed Street, Hobsonville, Auckland 0618

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5279619 — Rent arrears at 43 Lockheed Street, Hobsonville, Auckland 0618

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions