What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5392886?

The tribunal order states: The order has been amended to remedy an administrative error. The name of the

How much money was awarded in case 5392886?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5392886?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5392886?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12974784-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5392886?

The tribunal order states: The order has been amended to remedy an administrative error. The name of the

How much money was awarded in case 5392886?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5392886?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5392886?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12974784-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

77 Spence Road, Henderson, Auckland 0612 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5392886 — Rent arrears

Order

The order has been amended to remedy an administrative error. The name of the mediator was included in error and has now been deleted.
The application for rehearing and stay is dismissed on the papers.

Reasons

The Tribunal has received an application for rehearing filed by the tenant, as well as an application for a stay of prosecution.
The parties underwent a mediation. The mediated order records that it was agreed there were rent arrears, and that a 14 day notice to remedy those had been issued, and not complied with. On the date of the mediation (10 December 2025), the arrears totalled $2,270, and the outstanding bond $2,100. Therefore the total debt was $4,370.00. The mediated order was sealed, so has become an order of the Tribunal.
The parties agreed to a conditional arrangement, which was that the tenant would make set payments by a particular dates, but if the tenant failed to make those payments, then the tenancy would terminate.
The landlord determined that the tenant had breached that agreement, so applied to the Bailiff to evict the tenant.
The tenant filed an application for rehearing and stay. The reason the tenant seeks a rehearing, is because she says that she has complied with the mediated agreement, and therefore, there is no basis for the eviction occurring. The tenant has not identified anything that went wrong with the mediation.
Section 105 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 relates to rehearings. Subsection 1 confirms that: The Tribunal shall in all proceedings have 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.
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 [2003] DCR 50, Judge Tuohy held that the statutory language set a high standard, and that: [18] ... 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 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 Judge Christiansen in the District Court appeal of Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC 1993: In this Court’s view the Tribunal’s reasons for refusing a rehearing are correct. Rehearings are about challenges to processes and procedures and are not about what the adjudicator found or the decisions the adjudicator made.
In this case, the tenant has not suggested that anything has gone wrong with the procedure of the hearing. What she is saying, is that there is no basis for the eviction, which is a matter that now falls outside the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal. If the tenant considers that she has complied with the mediated order, then that needs to be advanced with the Bailiff’s.
Because the tenant has not identified a proposed substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice as it relates to the mediation or sealing of the order, the application for rehearing is dismissed.
Again, the tenant needs to take up her concerns with the Collections Unit / Bailiffs.

Order

The order has been amended to remedy an administrative error. The name of the mediator was included in error and has now been deleted.
The application for rehearing and stay is dismissed on the papers.

Reasons

The Tribunal has received an application for rehearing filed by the tenant, as well as an application for a stay of prosecution.
The parties underwent a mediation. The mediated order records that it was agreed there were rent arrears, and that a 14 day notice to remedy those had been issued, and not complied with. On the date of the mediation (10 December 2025), the arrears totalled $2,270, and the outstanding bond $2,100. Therefore the total debt was $4,370.00. The mediated order was sealed, so has become an order of the Tribunal.
The parties agreed to a conditional arrangement, which was that the tenant would make set payments by a particular dates, but if the tenant failed to make those payments, then the tenancy would terminate.
The landlord determined that the tenant had breached that agreement, so applied to the Bailiff to evict the tenant.
The tenant filed an application for rehearing and stay. The reason the tenant seeks a rehearing, is because she says that she has complied with the mediated agreement, and therefore, there is no basis for the eviction occurring. The tenant has not identified anything that went wrong with the mediation.
Section 105 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 relates to rehearings. Subsection 1 confirms that: The Tribunal shall in all proceedings have 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.
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 [2003] DCR 50, Judge Tuohy held that the statutory language set a high standard, and that: [18] ... 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 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 Judge Christiansen in the District Court appeal of Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC 1993: In this Court’s view the Tribunal’s reasons for refusing a rehearing are correct. Rehearings are about challenges to processes and procedures and are not about what the adjudicator found or the decisions the adjudicator made.
In this case, the tenant has not suggested that anything has gone wrong with the procedure of the hearing. What she is saying, is that there is no basis for the eviction, which is a matter that now falls outside the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal. If the tenant considers that she has complied with the mediated order, then that needs to be advanced with the Bailiff’s.
Because the tenant has not identified a proposed substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice as it relates to the mediation or sealing of the order, the application for rehearing is dismissed.
Again, the tenant needs to take up her concerns with the Collections Unit / Bailiffs.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5392886 — Rent arrears at 77 Spence Road, Henderson, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5392886 — Rent arrears at 77 Spence Road, Henderson, Auckland 0612

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions