What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5347030?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5347030?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5347030?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5347030?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13351515-Tribunal_Order - AP.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5347030?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5347030?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5347030?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5347030?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13351515-Tribunal_Order - AP.pdf.

39B Rimutaka Street, Trentham, Upper Hutt 5018 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5347030 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application for a rehearing is dismissed

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing in respect of whether a rehearing should be granted.
The tenant did not connect to the remote hearing. The tenant was telephoned on the phone number provided but the phone call went unanswered. I am satisfied the tenant was properly served with notice of the hearing. The hearing proceeded in their absence.
The first hearing for this matter was on 6 November 2025. The hearing was adjourned and the adjournment order recorded the landlord’s amended claims for compensation for the hearing.
On 22 January 2026 there was a further hearing in respect of the landlord’s claims and an order was issued on 26 January 2026 in respect of the claims. That day the landlord applied for a rehearing due to an error in the order in respect of the bond and a misunderstanding about the amounts claimed and a concern that this resulted in the decision to decline name suppression. On 28 January 2026 I issued an amended order to correct the comment in respect of the bond.
The issue I must consider is whether a rehearing should be granted. The Law - Rehearings
The relevant law that applies is the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The RTA states the Tribunal has 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. 1
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.
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. 2
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, 3 Judge Tuohy held that the statutory language set a high standard, and said: ... 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 1 See s 105 of the RTA. 2 Yogeswaran v Doubletrees Properties Ltd [2021] NZDC 15704 3 Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50 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 the District Court in Loh v Puri 4 : In this Court’s view the Tribunal’s reasons for refusing a rehearing are correct. Rehearing’s are about challenges to processes and procedures and are not about what the adjudicator found or the decisions the adjudicator made.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the reasons that follow, I am not satisfied that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice may have occurred. 5
The landlord clarified at this hearing that they only sought a rehearing in respect of name suppression and agreed that if I grant a rehearing on the issue of name suppression only that I determine that issue.
The landlord says there has been a miscommunication or misunderstanding in respect of the amounts claimed and the amount claimed was only intended to be the amount in the application. The landlord says it is uncommon for the Tribunal to allow amendments to a claim and the invoices were provided to show the actual amounts incurred.
On 6 November 2025 the matter was first called for hearing. At that hearing I noted the application form claimed amounts that were less than the invoices. The landlord said, “I have just realised that to so I may need to amend”. I allowed the claim to be amended and confirmed that the amounts claimed were the amounts in the invoices and went through each invoice to confirm the amount claimed and recorded the amended claim in my order for the next hearing. At the start of the second hearing on 22 January 2026 I went through all the claims and amounts claimed and the landlord confirmed the amounts were claimed.
I consider that there has been no miscommunication or misunderstanding about what was claimed and therefore there has been no procedural error. The Tribunal may allow an amended claim provided the other party has notice and in this case the matter was adjourned to ensure the tenant has clear notice of the claims.
The landlord’s written submission says there has been a “factual misunderstanding”. If the landlord considers the Tribunal is wrong in its finding 4 Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC 1993 Judge Christiansen 5 See s 105 of the RTA. of fact or in applying the law in relation to suppression, then these are matters for an appeal, not a rehearing.
I do not consider a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice may have occurred which justifies a rehearing. Accordingly, the application for a rehearing is dismissed.
The landlord applied for name suppression in respect of this order. Because the landlord has been unsuccessful with the application for a rehearing name suppression in respect of this order is declined. 6

Order

The application for a rehearing is dismissed

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing in respect of whether a rehearing should be granted.
The tenant did not connect to the remote hearing. The tenant was telephoned on the phone number provided but the phone call went unanswered. I am satisfied the tenant was properly served with notice of the hearing. The hearing proceeded in their absence.
The first hearing for this matter was on 6 November 2025. The hearing was adjourned and the adjournment order recorded the landlord’s amended claims for compensation for the hearing.
On 22 January 2026 there was a further hearing in respect of the landlord’s claims and an order was issued on 26 January 2026 in respect of the claims. That day the landlord applied for a rehearing due to an error in the order in respect of the bond and a misunderstanding about the amounts claimed and a concern that this resulted in the decision to decline name suppression. On 28 January 2026 I issued an amended order to correct the comment in respect of the bond.
The issue I must consider is whether a rehearing should be granted. The Law - Rehearings
The relevant law that applies is the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). The RTA states the Tribunal has 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. 1
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.
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. 2
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, 3 Judge Tuohy held that the statutory language set a high standard, and said: ... 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 1 See s 105 of the RTA. 2 Yogeswaran v Doubletrees Properties Ltd [2021] NZDC 15704 3 Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50 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 the District Court in Loh v Puri 4 : In this Court’s view the Tribunal’s reasons for refusing a rehearing are correct. Rehearing’s are about challenges to processes and procedures and are not about what the adjudicator found or the decisions the adjudicator made.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the reasons that follow, I am not satisfied that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice may have occurred. 5
The landlord clarified at this hearing that they only sought a rehearing in respect of name suppression and agreed that if I grant a rehearing on the issue of name suppression only that I determine that issue.
The landlord says there has been a miscommunication or misunderstanding in respect of the amounts claimed and the amount claimed was only intended to be the amount in the application. The landlord says it is uncommon for the Tribunal to allow amendments to a claim and the invoices were provided to show the actual amounts incurred.
On 6 November 2025 the matter was first called for hearing. At that hearing I noted the application form claimed amounts that were less than the invoices. The landlord said, “I have just realised that to so I may need to amend”. I allowed the claim to be amended and confirmed that the amounts claimed were the amounts in the invoices and went through each invoice to confirm the amount claimed and recorded the amended claim in my order for the next hearing. At the start of the second hearing on 22 January 2026 I went through all the claims and amounts claimed and the landlord confirmed the amounts were claimed.
I consider that there has been no miscommunication or misunderstanding about what was claimed and therefore there has been no procedural error. The Tribunal may allow an amended claim provided the other party has notice and in this case the matter was adjourned to ensure the tenant has clear notice of the claims.
The landlord’s written submission says there has been a “factual misunderstanding”. If the landlord considers the Tribunal is wrong in its finding 4 Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC 1993 Judge Christiansen 5 See s 105 of the RTA. of fact or in applying the law in relation to suppression, then these are matters for an appeal, not a rehearing.
I do not consider a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice may have occurred which justifies a rehearing. Accordingly, the application for a rehearing is dismissed.
The landlord applied for name suppression in respect of this order. Because the landlord has been unsuccessful with the application for a rehearing name suppression in respect of this order is declined. 6

Tenancy Tribunal case 5347030 — Tenancy dispute at 39B Rimutaka Street, Trentham, Upper Hutt 5018

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5347030 — Tenancy dispute at 39B Rimutaka Street, Trentham, Upper Hutt 5018

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