What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5320023?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5320023?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5320023?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5320023?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13716148-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5320023?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5320023?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5320023?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5320023?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13716148-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Room 67, 33 Mount Street, Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 5320023 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on 8 June 2026 by video. The tenant had the assistance of a mandarin interpreter.
On 12 December 2025 the Tribunal made an order for compensation in favour of the tenant.
On 12 December 2025, Chang Zhang applied for a rehearing on the grounds that the Tribunal placed incorrect weight on the medical evidence and concluded there was insufficient evidence to determine long term harm.
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?

For the following reasons Chang Zhang has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
The tenant said that he did not agree with the Tribunal decision because he thinks that either the Tribunal did not have all the evidence or did not take it into account. When asked about the specific evidence he said it was the photographs of his peeling skin which was very serious and painful, that he was exhausted physically and mentally, and that he was fearful that he had suffered radiation damage. He said that the evidence of him having money from his family was the reason why he was not awarded compensation for harm and damage.
The tenant wants reasonable compensation for physical and psychological damage that he suffered rather than just the medical costs.
Prior to the hearing held on 12 December 2025 the tenant had not consulted with specialists (optometrist/ophthalmologist and dermatologist) as recommended by his medical practitioner. It was due to this that the Tribunal was unable to determine any long-term harm to the tenant.
At the hearing held on 8 June 2026 the tenant did not produce any new medical evidence. He said that he had tried to get an appointment to see a specialist before the hearing in December 2025, but they were fully booked and at the time he did not have the money to do so. He said that later his family sent him money, but he still did not consult the specialists.
The tenant said that he saw a specialist in China but no evidence of this was produced. He said that his skin is now OK, but his eyesight has deteriorated. Without independent evidence the Tribunal is not able to take this into account.
The Tribunal has dealt with the application for compensation and made an award based on the evidence produced. There is no evidence of any long-term effect on the tenant’s health due to exposure to UV light.
The tenant’s application for rehearing is dismissed.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing held on 8 June 2026 by video. The tenant had the assistance of a mandarin interpreter.
On 12 December 2025 the Tribunal made an order for compensation in favour of the tenant.
On 12 December 2025, Chang Zhang applied for a rehearing on the grounds that the Tribunal placed incorrect weight on the medical evidence and concluded there was insufficient evidence to determine long term harm.
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?

For the following reasons Chang Zhang has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
The tenant said that he did not agree with the Tribunal decision because he thinks that either the Tribunal did not have all the evidence or did not take it into account. When asked about the specific evidence he said it was the photographs of his peeling skin which was very serious and painful, that he was exhausted physically and mentally, and that he was fearful that he had suffered radiation damage. He said that the evidence of him having money from his family was the reason why he was not awarded compensation for harm and damage.
The tenant wants reasonable compensation for physical and psychological damage that he suffered rather than just the medical costs.
Prior to the hearing held on 12 December 2025 the tenant had not consulted with specialists (optometrist/ophthalmologist and dermatologist) as recommended by his medical practitioner. It was due to this that the Tribunal was unable to determine any long-term harm to the tenant.
At the hearing held on 8 June 2026 the tenant did not produce any new medical evidence. He said that he had tried to get an appointment to see a specialist before the hearing in December 2025, but they were fully booked and at the time he did not have the money to do so. He said that later his family sent him money, but he still did not consult the specialists.
The tenant said that he saw a specialist in China but no evidence of this was produced. He said that his skin is now OK, but his eyesight has deteriorated. Without independent evidence the Tribunal is not able to take this into account.
The Tribunal has dealt with the application for compensation and made an award based on the evidence produced. There is no evidence of any long-term effect on the tenant’s health due to exposure to UV light.
The tenant’s application for rehearing is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5320023 — Tenancy dispute at Room 67, 33 Mount Street, Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5320023 — Tenancy dispute at Room 67, 33 Mount Street, Auckland Central, Auckland

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

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions