What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5437913?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5437913?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5437913?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5437913?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13596741-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5437913?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5437913?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5437913?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5437913?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13596741-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

35 Hedge Row, Sunnyhills, Auckland 2010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5437913 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Ms Zang, the landlord, Mr Zheng, representing both tenants, and Ms Wang, the Mandarin interpreter, all attended the rehearing consideration hearing by teleconference and video conference respectively.
On 17 March 2026, the Tribunal made an order for the bond of $3,080.00 to be returned to the tenants, dismissing all other claims for compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee by both parties, on the basis of insufficient evidence being provided to support those claims.
On 22 March 2026, Ms Zang, the landlord, applied for a rehearing on five grounds. In an order dated 24 March 2026, four of Ms Zang’s grounds for rehearing were struck out, The matters raised in the four grounds struck out were matters that could not be considered in a rehearing and would need to be considered in an appeal to the District Court.
In the order dated 24 March 2026, I directed that a rehearing consideration hearing be scheduled to hear one ground only of the landlord’s rehearing application, namely that the landlord said she was denied a fair hearing as she had been cut off, could not present key evidence and could not make a final comment. I also directed that each party was to have 15 minutes to present their submissions on the landlord’s ground for rehearing. As there was an interpreter at the hearing, I extended the time for the parties to make their submissions during this hearing, to allow for interpretation, so that the landlord was given about 20 minutes to present her submissions and the tenant only took around 10 minutes to present their submissions in response. The landlord was also permitted a brief time to respond to the tenant’s submissions.
The landlord provided further documents just before the rehearing consideration hearing, which included a property checklist dated 6 April 2026, a comparison of evidence and a record of the landlord’s notes. These documents do not relate to the landlord’s ground being discussed at the rehearing consideration hearing, which was procedurally that she was denied a fair hearing by being cut off, could not present key evidence and could not make a final comment at the end of the hearing. I do not consider these documents to be ‘new evidence’ that could not have been provided at or prior to the original hearing either, as the landlord submitted, as 2 of them could have been presented at the original hearing, and the property checklist provided dated 6 April 2026 would not have changed the outcome of the decision in any event. Further, there was already a property checklist from new tenants provided and discussed at the original hearing. The landlord also provided a significant number of other documents for her rehearing application, some of which repeated documents provided for the original hearing.
I have further reviewed all the documents provided by both parties in support or in defence to the landlord’s rehearing application.
At the rehearing consideration hearing, the landlord, in summary, made the following submissions: a. That she was not given a fair opportunity at the original hearing, was interrupted by the adjudicator when giving evidence and was not able to clearly connect her points to evidence provided, as she was interrupted. The landlord said that the tenant was about 30 minutes late to the hearing and the adjudicator spent a considerable time summarising the landlord’s evidence for the tenant before proceeding and the landlord believed she should have had this time to give her evidence. b. The landlord said her documentation, including her insurance documents, were not considered by the adjudicator. c. The landlord gave several examples of how her being cut off by the adjudicator affected the outcome of the decision. These included her not being able to highlight the issue of visibility in the photographs of the damage, the call log in relation to the new tenants who did not notice the damage initially on move in, which she said directly contradicted paragraph 36 of the decision, that she was not allowed to explain the correct legal position to the adjudicator that in signing the bond form, she was not waiving her right to claim for later discovered damage, that she was cut off before she could explain to the adjudicator the burden of proof, and the order did not reflect this burden of proof but instead speculated that she caused the damage, that because she was cut off she could not highlight that she had responded to the tenants appropriately despite them saying she had not provided photographs or a response to them, that she could not highlight the tenant’s contradictions about not seeing the damage on the door before the hearing and saying at the hearing that the damage was visible, and that as she could not make a final comment she could not highlight her insurance statement and this core evidence was not highlighted in the decision.
The tenant said in their submissions at the rehearing consideration hearing that the landlord had sufficient time to present her evidence at the hearing, that, as the original hearing started with only the landlord present, as the tenants did not attend the hearing until about 30 minutes after the start of the hearing, the landlord had time to explain her position and present her evidence then, that the adjudicator summarised what the landlord had discussed before they attended the hearing to try to ensure that everything was fair for both parties, which they felt was appropriate, that the decision made reflects that the adjudicator took the landlord’s evidence into account and considered the evidence thoroughly, that the landlord’s documents, including the landlord’s insurance documents and the inspection information from the new tenants were all included and discussed at the hearing, that even though the landlord was dissatisfied with the outcome of the hearing, this did not mean that the hearing procedure was conducted unfairly. The tenant asked the Tribunal to strike out the landlord’s rehearing application and reinstate the original order. Law
Section 105(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) 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”.
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.”
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.
Also as noted by Judge Christiansen in the District Court appeal of Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC 1993: “Rehearings 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 following reasons, Ms Zang, the landlord, has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing: a. The landlord explained in detail at the original hearing her evidence relating to the visibility of the damage to the door, both at the start of the tenancy, at the end of the tenancy and on 22 November 2025. This evidence is reflected in the decision in detail, including the landlord’s explanation about having to open the curtains to allow in more light to take a detailed photograph of the damage to the door on 22 November 2025. b. The issue of the new tenants not noticing the damage to the door initially and then later discovering this damage was also dealt with in the decision. A property checklist relating to the new tenants was also discussed at the original hearing. c. There is nothing in the decision that indicates that the landlord was not able to claim for later discovered damage even after signing the bond refund form. The issue about the landlord signing the bond refund form, whilst mentioned in the decision, did not affect the decision made, which was based on the landlord not providing sufficient evidence to prove her claim. d. The landlord’s insurance evidence was referred to and dealt with in the decision, including in paragraph 23 and elsewhere in the decision, and so was considered by the Tribunal. e. The burden of proof is outlined specifically in paragraph 7 of the decision. f. The communication log between the parties referred to by the landlord, where the landlord maintains she dealt with the tenant’s request for information and photographs appropriately before the hearing, is not relevant to the decision, which is based on the landlord not providing sufficient evidence to prove her claim. g. The landlord has not provided any ‘new evidence’ that was not or could not have been available at the original hearing, or which would have made a difference to the decision. h. Subsection 96(4) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal may regulate its own procedure in such a manner as it thinks fit, except as expressly provided in the Act or in Regulations. i. Subsection 97(6) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal shall have the power to refuse to accept any evidence or submission that is irrelevant or repetitious. j. The landlord was provided a full opportunity at the original hearing to present all her evidence, much of which had also been provided in written documents before the hearing. This includes about 30 minutes at the start of the hearing, where the landlord was the only party present to give her evidence. Summarising the landlord’s evidence for the tenant when they joined the hearing about 30 minutes after the hearing start time, was appropriate in the interests of fairness between the parties, given the tenants had to respond to the landlord’s evidence. The landlord’s evidence, as it relates to the findings, was considered and is reflected fully in the decision. k. The hearing involved cross-applications from both parties and so each party was provided with hearing time to present evidence for their own application and to respond to the other party’s application. During the hearing, the landlord repeated much evidence that she had already presented, and so she was then asked to focus on only new evidence that had not already been presented by her. The Tribunal is permitted to determine the procedure in a hearing to manage this issue pursuant to sections 96(4) and 97(6) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. This did not affect the landlord’s evidence being fully considered or referred to, as appropriate to findings made, in the decision. l. Given what is outlined above, I find the landlord has not established there was a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice and so the landlord’s rehearing application is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5437913 — Tenancy dispute at 35 Hedge Row, Sunnyhills, Auckland 2010

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5437913 — Tenancy dispute at 35 Hedge Row, Sunnyhills, Auckland 2010

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

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions