What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5316033?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5316033?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5316033?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5316033?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13260742-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5316033?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5316033?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5316033?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5316033?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13260742-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

3 Judds Road, Solway, Masterton 5810 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5316033 — Exemplary damages

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application for rehearing filed by the landlord. Timetabling was issued for submissions to be filed to consider the rehearing request on the papers, but no submissions have been provided.

BACKGROUND

In terms of this rehearing request, the background can be summarised succinctly as follows: a. The landlord has filed two applications with the Tribunal, the first seeking compensation and exemplary damages, the other relating to the disposal of goods after the tenant vacated the premises. b. On 29 October 2025 a Tenancy Tribunal hearing was scheduled for 16 January 2026, at the Masterton District Courthouse. c. A hearing was convened on 16 January 2026 as scheduled. d. There was no appearance by the landlord or tenant at the hearing, so the application was dismissed for non-appearance that same day. I note that the Tribunal had not received any request for adjournment or other arrangements for the hearing. e. Later on 16 January 2026, the landlord applied for a rehearing, stating simply that: I have been trying to contact the tenant but they have not responded. I was away in Tauranga for business, so I could not attend the hearing in person. Could I please request a telephonic hearing. f. On 22 January 2026, I issued directions for this rehearing request to be considered on the papers. The landlords’ submissions were due on 30 January 2026, the tenants’ on 9 February 2026. g. No submissions have been filed by either party, and there has been no other communication received either.

RELEVANT LAW

Section 105 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 relates to rehearings. Subsection 1 confirms that: The Tribunal shall in all proceedings have the power to order a rehearing of the whole or any part of the proceedings on the ground that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur.
The applicant need not establish an actual miscarriage of justice or substantial wrong, only that it may have occurred. However, in the District Court Judgment of Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, Judge Tuohy held that the statutory language set a high standard, and that: [18] ... 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. [19] 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. [20] 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 any decision twice: once to the very Tribunal which made it 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 that 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.”
As noted by Judge Christiansen in the District Court appeal of Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC 1993: In this Court’s view the Tribunal’s reasons for refusing a rehearing are correct. Rehearings are about challenges to processes and procedures and are not about what the adjudicator found or the decisions the adjudicator made.

ANALYSIS

I have set out the relevant law that applies to rehearings above. In short, re- hearings are a safety measure, should something have gone wrong with the hearing, normally on a procedural basis, in which case a rehearing can be approved so that the matter then returns to the Tribunal for a further hearing.
The landlord has not filed submissions as directed in relation to the rehearing request.
However, even if I were to consider the reasons set out in the rehearing request, that would not be sufficient to approve a rehearing. The landlord has not identified any procedural issues with the hearing. The landlord appears not to have appeared because he was away from Masterton on business. That is a matter entirely in the landlord’s control; the landlord could have applied for an adjournment or made other arrangements to attend and be heard, such as appointing a representative.
As I cannot see any prospect of a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice, the request for a rehearing is dismissed.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application for rehearing filed by the landlord. Timetabling was issued for submissions to be filed to consider the rehearing request on the papers, but no submissions have been provided.

BACKGROUND

In terms of this rehearing request, the background can be summarised succinctly as follows: a. The landlord has filed two applications with the Tribunal, the first seeking compensation and exemplary damages, the other relating to the disposal of goods after the tenant vacated the premises. b. On 29 October 2025 a Tenancy Tribunal hearing was scheduled for 16 January 2026, at the Masterton District Courthouse. c. A hearing was convened on 16 January 2026 as scheduled. d. There was no appearance by the landlord or tenant at the hearing, so the application was dismissed for non-appearance that same day. I note that the Tribunal had not received any request for adjournment or other arrangements for the hearing. e. Later on 16 January 2026, the landlord applied for a rehearing, stating simply that: I have been trying to contact the tenant but they have not responded. I was away in Tauranga for business, so I could not attend the hearing in person. Could I please request a telephonic hearing. f. On 22 January 2026, I issued directions for this rehearing request to be considered on the papers. The landlords’ submissions were due on 30 January 2026, the tenants’ on 9 February 2026. g. No submissions have been filed by either party, and there has been no other communication received either.

RELEVANT LAW

Section 105 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 relates to rehearings. Subsection 1 confirms that: The Tribunal shall in all proceedings have the power to order a rehearing of the whole or any part of the proceedings on the ground that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur.
The applicant need not establish an actual miscarriage of justice or substantial wrong, only that it may have occurred. However, in the District Court Judgment of Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, Judge Tuohy held that the statutory language set a high standard, and that: [18] ... 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. [19] 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. [20] 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 any decision twice: once to the very Tribunal which made it 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 that 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.”
As noted by Judge Christiansen in the District Court appeal of Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC 1993: In this Court’s view the Tribunal’s reasons for refusing a rehearing are correct. Rehearings are about challenges to processes and procedures and are not about what the adjudicator found or the decisions the adjudicator made.

ANALYSIS

I have set out the relevant law that applies to rehearings above. In short, re- hearings are a safety measure, should something have gone wrong with the hearing, normally on a procedural basis, in which case a rehearing can be approved so that the matter then returns to the Tribunal for a further hearing.
The landlord has not filed submissions as directed in relation to the rehearing request.
However, even if I were to consider the reasons set out in the rehearing request, that would not be sufficient to approve a rehearing. The landlord has not identified any procedural issues with the hearing. The landlord appears not to have appeared because he was away from Masterton on business. That is a matter entirely in the landlord’s control; the landlord could have applied for an adjournment or made other arrangements to attend and be heard, such as appointing a representative.
As I cannot see any prospect of a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice, the request for a rehearing is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5316033 — Exemplary damages at 3 Judds Road, Solway, Masterton 5810

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5316033 — Exemplary damages at 3 Judds Road, Solway, Masterton 5810

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LAW

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

RELEVANT LAW

ANALYSIS

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions