What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5363485?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5363485?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5363485?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5363485?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12978587-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5363485?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5363485?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5363485?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5363485?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12978587-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

285 Point View Drive, Shamrock Park, Auckland 2016 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5363485 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Order

The application for rehearing is granted.

The parties will be notified by Tenancy Services of the time, date, and place of the next hearing.

A different adjudicator will hear the claim.

If either party intends to produce any additional documents at the next hearing, they should send two copies to the Tribunal no later than 10 days after the date of this order, for service to the other party.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.

Rawinia Margaret Kaukau has applied for a rehearing of the Tribunal order dated 23 October 2025.

For the reasons set out below, I am satisfied that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred, and a rehearing is granted. See section 105 Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

The basis of the tenants claim to the Tribunal was that the 42 days’ notice to terminate the tenancy because the landlord had intended to live in the property, was wrong and therefore invalid.

In the actual hearing the tenant provided some unsupported evidence that the owner was actually intending to demolish the house and not live in it, which was denied by the landlord.

After receiving my order, the tenant applied to the Auckland City Council, (“ACC”), for the property file on the property. This information has only just been made available to the tenant. The information from ACC shows that the owner had sought resource consent to demolish and subdivide the property, prior to serving the 42 days’ notice.

Given these documents, which were not available at the time of the hearing, I accept there may have been a miscarriage of justice, and a rehearing should be granted as a result.

The tenant accepts that had the landlord served an appropriate 90 days’ notice she would have left the tenancy already. Rehearing application out of time:

The landlord strongly opposes the rehearing application stating that the tenant filed the application out of time.

I accept she did, however she sought the information from ACC immediately after the order was sent to her.

The Tribunal can accept the late filing of a rehearing application in certain circumstances. There is a discretion to extend this timeframe, such as if a party has acted promptly to obtain supporting evidence.

The tenant filed her rehearing application outside the five working day timeframe set out in section 105 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”). The delay was due to her efforts to obtain further information from ACC to support her application. Given the circumstances and the fact that the new information is relevant and supports the tenants’ claims, I am satisfied that it is just to extend the timeframe and accept the late filing of the rehearing application.

Order