What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9039344?

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

How much money was awarded in case 9039344?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9039344?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9039344?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10017679-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9039344?

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

How much money was awarded in case 9039344?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9039344?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9039344?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10017679-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Auckland Central, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 9039344 — Unit Titles

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Counsel for both parties attended the hearing to consider the rehearing application filed by the respondent.
On 9 August 2023, the Tribunal made an order for the respondent to pay collection costs and interests to the body corporate for delay in paying levies (ie., water invoices) pursuant to the Unit Titles Act 2010 (‘UTA’).
On 16 August 2023, the respondent applied for a rehearing on the grounds that he was not legally trained, has incoherent and limited English which resulted relevant facts not properly conveyed to the Tribunal, and incorrect factual findings have been made by the adjudicator. At today’s hearing, counsel for the respondent submitted the respondent did not know he had been sent an invoice simply because the body corporate failed to update his latest email on the system; counsel submits that there was no need to address the legality of section 81 UTA (on appointing a local agent when the respondent was overseas) in the circumstances.
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.
In Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, Judge Tuohy considered the provision “a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur” to be strong words which set a high standard and most obviously apply to cases of procedural error or discovery of new evidence.
Those words however cannot cover a complaint that Tenancy Tribunal was merely mistaken or wrong in its findings of fact or application of law. Where the grounds relied on in application for rehearing are complaints about legal correctness of decision they should have been dealt with by way of appeal. No distinction can be made between errors of law that are grave enough to constitute a substantial miscarriage of justice and those which are not.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

The respondent has failed to establish grounds for a rehearing.
The respondent’s rehearing application raises no procedural error or discovery of new evidence which could have affected the outcome of the original hearing.
The respondent spoke adequate English during the proceedings. There was nothing during the proceedings that indicated that the respondent did not understand English or was otherwise unable to present his case.
Written submissions were invited at the end of the hearing so as to afford him the opportunity to express what he wanted to say. The respondent did so and filed written submissions without protest. The respondent’s written submissions were not incoherent, as it is now alleged in support of the rehearing application.
The fact that the respondent did not avail himself to legal representation does not by itself invalidate the proceedings. This was an election made by the respondent to represent himself at the hearing.
The respondent’s challenge on the Tribunal’s substantive finding that the issue of the respondent’s compliance with section 81 UTA is directly relevant to the unity owner’s defence for his untimely payment of levies amounts to a complaint that Tribunal was mistaken or wrong in its findings of fact or application of law.
Following Judge Tuohy’s ruling in McMillan, complaints about legal correctness of a decision should have been dealt with by way of appeal rather than an application for rehearing and no distinction can be made between errors of law that are grave enough to constitute a substantial miscarriage of justice and those which are not.
Ultimately, all the material points relied upon by the respondent in the substantive hearing and the present application for rehearing have been duly canvassed, addressed and determined, albeit there were against the applicant/body corporate in the proceedings.
There remains nothing before the Tribunal that could have affected the outcome of the original hearing.
For those reasons, the rehearing application must fail.

Order

The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons

Counsel for both parties attended the hearing to consider the rehearing application filed by the respondent.
On 9 August 2023, the Tribunal made an order for the respondent to pay collection costs and interests to the body corporate for delay in paying levies (ie., water invoices) pursuant to the Unit Titles Act 2010 (‘UTA’).
On 16 August 2023, the respondent applied for a rehearing on the grounds that he was not legally trained, has incoherent and limited English which resulted relevant facts not properly conveyed to the Tribunal, and incorrect factual findings have been made by the adjudicator. At today’s hearing, counsel for the respondent submitted the respondent did not know he had been sent an invoice simply because the body corporate failed to update his latest email on the system; counsel submits that there was no need to address the legality of section 81 UTA (on appointing a local agent when the respondent was overseas) in the circumstances.
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.
In Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, Judge Tuohy considered the provision “a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur” to be strong words which set a high standard and most obviously apply to cases of procedural error or discovery of new evidence.
Those words however cannot cover a complaint that Tenancy Tribunal was merely mistaken or wrong in its findings of fact or application of law. Where the grounds relied on in application for rehearing are complaints about legal correctness of decision they should have been dealt with by way of appeal. No distinction can be made between errors of law that are grave enough to constitute a substantial miscarriage of justice and those which are not.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

The respondent has failed to establish grounds for a rehearing.
The respondent’s rehearing application raises no procedural error or discovery of new evidence which could have affected the outcome of the original hearing.
The respondent spoke adequate English during the proceedings. There was nothing during the proceedings that indicated that the respondent did not understand English or was otherwise unable to present his case.
Written submissions were invited at the end of the hearing so as to afford him the opportunity to express what he wanted to say. The respondent did so and filed written submissions without protest. The respondent’s written submissions were not incoherent, as it is now alleged in support of the rehearing application.
The fact that the respondent did not avail himself to legal representation does not by itself invalidate the proceedings. This was an election made by the respondent to represent himself at the hearing.
The respondent’s challenge on the Tribunal’s substantive finding that the issue of the respondent’s compliance with section 81 UTA is directly relevant to the unity owner’s defence for his untimely payment of levies amounts to a complaint that Tribunal was mistaken or wrong in its findings of fact or application of law.
Following Judge Tuohy’s ruling in McMillan, complaints about legal correctness of a decision should have been dealt with by way of appeal rather than an application for rehearing and no distinction can be made between errors of law that are grave enough to constitute a substantial miscarriage of justice and those which are not.
Ultimately, all the material points relied upon by the respondent in the substantive hearing and the present application for rehearing have been duly canvassed, addressed and determined, albeit there were against the applicant/body corporate in the proceedings.
There remains nothing before the Tribunal that could have affected the outcome of the original hearing.
For those reasons, the rehearing application must fail.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9039344 — Unit Titles in Auckland Central, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 9039344 — 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