What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5364685?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5364685?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5364685?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5364685?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13234159-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5364685?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5364685?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5364685?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5364685?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13234159-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

10 Bridge Street, New Brighton, Christchurch 8061 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5364685 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended a rehearing hearing by video.
On 1 January 2026 the Tribunal made orders in respect of this tenancy. In those orders, I found that a notice to terminate the tenancy was not retaliatory. In doing so, I relied on oral evidence of Jane Hays at a hearing on 9 December 2025.
Ms Kristiansen applied for a rehearing on the grounds that a miscarriage of justice had occurred. In essence, Ms Kristiansen alleged that Jane Hays gave incorrect or misleading evidence at the first hearing. She says that Jane Hays left New Zealand in late 2025, so did not and cannot have intended to live in the premises when the notice of termination was given. Ms Hays maintains that she intend to reside in the premises and her circumstances changed.
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 Ms Kristiansen has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
Ms Kristiansen did raise any error or issue with the Tribunal’s process at the first hearing.
The sole basis of her application is that Jane Hays’ evidence misled the Tribunal and caused it to reach an incorrect or unjust conclusion in relation to the notice to end the tenancy.
The time for assessing the validity of a notice to terminate the tenancy is when the notice was given. The evidence Ms Kristiansen now relies on occurred after the notice was given and after the first hearing. By a fine margin, I accepted that Ms Hays intended to reside in the premises. While it now seems that Ms Hays was not completely frank with the Tribunal at the first hearing, I remain of that view. 1 If I am wrong on that finding of fact, that would be a matter for appeal, not rehearing.
I am also not satisfied that there is any utility in a rehearing. By the time of the first hearing the tenants had moved out of the premises and also wanted the tenancy to end. This is not a situation where the tenants still want the notice to terminate set aside. I pressed Ms Kristiansen during the rehearing hearing to identify what she sought from another hearing in practical terms. I repeatedly 1 It is not necessary to recite the full background. Suffice to note that Ms Hays did not disclose the Tribunal at the first hearing that it was possible that her brother would also reside in the premises with her and her husband. Even with that disclosure, the notice would have been valid, Ms Hays required the premises for herself and a member of her family. As events transpired, Ms Hays has returned overseas. Her brother remains in the premises. asked what different outcome she was seeking. My understanding is that the tenants want acknowledgement that Jane Hays did not intend to reside in the premises and a declaration that the notice was retaliatory. Ms Kristiansen did not seek any other orders, or alternative outcome.
In circumstances where the tenants have moved, also wanted the tenancy to end, and seek no other orders in relation to the notice there can be no practical benefit in a rehearing. The application as to whether the notice is retaliatory is moot. See Memelink v BC 68792 [2021] NZDC 11664; The Trustees of the Link Trust No 1 v BC 68782 [2022] NZHC 151.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended a rehearing hearing by video.
On 1 January 2026 the Tribunal made orders in respect of this tenancy. In those orders, I found that a notice to terminate the tenancy was not retaliatory. In doing so, I relied on oral evidence of Jane Hays at a hearing on 9 December 2025.
Ms Kristiansen applied for a rehearing on the grounds that a miscarriage of justice had occurred. In essence, Ms Kristiansen alleged that Jane Hays gave incorrect or misleading evidence at the first hearing. She says that Jane Hays left New Zealand in late 2025, so did not and cannot have intended to live in the premises when the notice of termination was given. Ms Hays maintains that she intend to reside in the premises and her circumstances changed.
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 Ms Kristiansen has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
Ms Kristiansen did raise any error or issue with the Tribunal’s process at the first hearing.
The sole basis of her application is that Jane Hays’ evidence misled the Tribunal and caused it to reach an incorrect or unjust conclusion in relation to the notice to end the tenancy.
The time for assessing the validity of a notice to terminate the tenancy is when the notice was given. The evidence Ms Kristiansen now relies on occurred after the notice was given and after the first hearing. By a fine margin, I accepted that Ms Hays intended to reside in the premises. While it now seems that Ms Hays was not completely frank with the Tribunal at the first hearing, I remain of that view. 1 If I am wrong on that finding of fact, that would be a matter for appeal, not rehearing.
I am also not satisfied that there is any utility in a rehearing. By the time of the first hearing the tenants had moved out of the premises and also wanted the tenancy to end. This is not a situation where the tenants still want the notice to terminate set aside. I pressed Ms Kristiansen during the rehearing hearing to identify what she sought from another hearing in practical terms. I repeatedly 1 It is not necessary to recite the full background. Suffice to note that Ms Hays did not disclose the Tribunal at the first hearing that it was possible that her brother would also reside in the premises with her and her husband. Even with that disclosure, the notice would have been valid, Ms Hays required the premises for herself and a member of her family. As events transpired, Ms Hays has returned overseas. Her brother remains in the premises. asked what different outcome she was seeking. My understanding is that the tenants want acknowledgement that Jane Hays did not intend to reside in the premises and a declaration that the notice was retaliatory. Ms Kristiansen did not seek any other orders, or alternative outcome.
In circumstances where the tenants have moved, also wanted the tenancy to end, and seek no other orders in relation to the notice there can be no practical benefit in a rehearing. The application as to whether the notice is retaliatory is moot. See Memelink v BC 68792 [2021] NZDC 11664; The Trustees of the Link Trust No 1 v BC 68782 [2022] NZHC 151.
The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5364685 — Tenancy dispute at 10 Bridge Street, New Brighton, Christchurch 8061

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5364685 — Tenancy dispute at 10 Bridge Street, New Brighton, Christchurch 8061

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions