What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5347241?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5347241?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5347241?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5347241?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13577699-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5347241?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5347241?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5347241?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5347241?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13577699-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

169 Dominion Road, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5347241 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

On 19 February 2026 the Tribunal made an order for refund of the bond to the tenant. The remaining claims were dismissed.

On 23 February 2026, Shaun Mark Wallace applied for a rehearing on the grounds that relevant evidence was not available at the hearing and false evidence was presented by the landlord.

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 Shaun Mark Wallace has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

The evidence that was not available at the hearing was the Police report relating to stolen items which the tenant submitted to the Police on 19 September 2025.

That evidence was available at the date of hearing, but the tenant had not produced it because he said that he thought he had submitted everything. That means that the evidence was reasonably available at the date of hearing.

Even though the tenant had not provided this evidence at the earlier hearing the Tribunal’s decision to decline his claim for compensation would not change with this evidence. The items reported to the Police are the same as the tenant has listed in his application to the Tribunal.

It is still not clear what happened to the belongings which the tenant says went missing. There is still a lack of evidence. It is also not clear why the tenant did not take his belongings with him when he was trespassed.

The other ground for seeking a rehearing relates to a photograph produced by the landlord which the tenant says was fake. It is the photograph referred to in the order at paragraph 29. At the earlier hearing the tenant claimed that the photograph was fake, but nothing has changed. There is no evidence that the photograph is fake.

Even if the photograph were fake, the decision of the Tribunal did not rely on this photograph.

For these reasons the tenant’s application for a rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

On 19 February 2026 the Tribunal made an order for refund of the bond to the tenant. The remaining claims were dismissed.

On 23 February 2026, Shaun Mark Wallace applied for a rehearing on the grounds that relevant evidence was not available at the hearing and false evidence was presented by the landlord.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

For the following reasons Shaun Mark Wallace has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

The evidence that was not available at the hearing was the Police report relating to stolen items which the tenant submitted to the Police on 19 September 2025.

Even if the photograph were fake, the decision of the Tribunal did not rely on this photograph.

For these reasons the tenant’s application for a rehearing is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5347241 — Tenancy dispute at 169 Dominion Road, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5347241 — Tenancy dispute at 169 Dominion Road, Mount Eden, Auckland 1024

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