What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9025141?

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

How much money was awarded in case 9025141?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9025141?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9025141?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10023993-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9025141?

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

How much money was awarded in case 9025141?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9025141?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9025141?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10023993-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 9025141 — Unit Titles

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing to consider the rehearing application. The unit owner/respondent is represented by Haixin Wang and the body corporate is represented by counsel Briar Dobson of Price Baker Berridge.

On 4 February 2021, the Tribunal made an order for the respondent to pay $17,997.02 in levies, interest, costs and the filing fee to the body corporate.

On 18 December 2023, the respondent applied for a rehearing on the grounds that a substantial miscarriage of justice has occurred, promising that “we shall have more details and also submit online much more information about the case.”

To date, no further details or materials have been adduced before the Tribunal in support of the rehearing application.

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. See section 171 Unit Titles Act 2010; section 96(4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

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?

The respondent failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

The rehearing application was filed more than 3 years after the original decision. No materials or grounds have been adduced on the inordinate delay in filing the application for a rehearing.

The order of 4 February 2021 has since been moved to the High Court for enforcement under CIV 2023-404-2344 and pursuant to section 120 of the District Court Act 2016, judgment is entered at the High Court against the respondent on the Tribunal order of 4 February 2021.

Ms Wang accepts that the judgment sum has since been paid.

Under those circumstances, the Tribunal is without jurisdiction to consider the rehearing application at all.

In any event, there is nothing before the Tribunal to indicate that any wrong or miscarriage of justice having occurred or is likely to occur.

For those reasons, the application for rehearing must fail.

Reasons

On 4 February 2021, the Tribunal made an order for the respondent to pay $17,997.02 in levies, interest, costs and the filing fee to the body corporate.

To date, no further details or materials have been adduced before the Tribunal in support of the rehearing application.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

The respondent failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

The rehearing application was filed more than 3 years after the original decision. No materials or grounds have been adduced on the inordinate delay in filing the application for a rehearing.

Ms Wang accepts that the judgment sum has since been paid.

Under those circumstances, the Tribunal is without jurisdiction to consider the rehearing application at all.

In any event, there is nothing before the Tribunal to indicate that any wrong or miscarriage of justice having occurred or is likely to occur.

For those reasons, the application for rehearing must fail.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9025141 — Unit Titles in Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 9025141 — Unit Titles in Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions