How much money was awarded in case 9048464?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9048464?

The primary dispute was Mould. Related themes: Leaks, Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9048464?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13403427-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 9048464?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 9048464?

The primary dispute was Mould. Related themes: Leaks, Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 9048464?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13403427-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Parnell, Auckland Tenancy Tribunal Case 9048464 — Mould

Q: What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 9048464?

The tribunal order states: a rehearing where “a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may

Order

a rehearing where “a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur”. 2 Forensic Building Consultants Ltd, Memorandum of Advice p 2. 3 Ibid p 36. 4 Note 3 at p 6. 5 Synopsis on Rehearing dated 12 May 2026 at para 14.

484644

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 Tribunal may grant a rehearing where the applicant discovers new evidence that was not reasonably available at the first hearing if it could have affected the outcome.
The applicant need not establish an actual miscarriage of justice or substantial wrong, only that it may have occurred. However, the Tribunal should not grant a rehearing only 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 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.

In Loh v Puri [2019] NZDC 1993, Judge Christiansen observed: Rehearings are about challenges to processes and procedures and are not about what the adjudicator found or the decisions the adjudicator made.
For applications based on further evidence, the proposed evidence should be “fresh”, which means that the applicant could not have with reasonable diligence produced the evidence at trial. However, lack of freshness may not be fatal if the circumstances are exceptional and the grounds compelling. In Rae v International Insurance Brokers, the Court of Appeal explained the principles as follows: 6 The principles upon which further evidence is admitted are designed to balance the interests of the person seeking to adduce such evidence on the one hand with the interests of the opposite parties on the other. They are also designed to reflect the public interest in ensuring, so far as is possible, that parties put up their best case at trial. Any other approach would be very wasteful of public resources. 6 Rae v International Insurance Brokers (Nelson Marlborough) Ltd [1998] 3 NZLR 190 at 193-194. The District Court applied Rae in Bruce Daniel as Trustee for Jemma Trust v Nicole Rutherford CIV-2009- 044-002056. 484645 The conventional requirements are that the further evidence must be fresh, it must be credible and it must be cogent. Evidence is not regarded as fresh if it could with reasonable diligence have been produced at the trial. ...While the absence of freshness is not an absolute disqualification, the criteria for admission in such circumstances must be very strict. In our view, when the evidence is not fresh it should not be admitted unless the circumstances are exceptional and the grounds compelling. In addition, it will need to pass the tests of credibility and cogency. Discussion
Mr Wood properly conceded that the proposed evidence is not fresh. Indeed, Mr Cary and his expert consultant Barry Gill, of Vernon Building Consultants were present during FBC’s inspection for preparing the report on 16 August 2021.
Since the evidence is not fresh, the issues for the Tribunal to decide are whether “the circumstances are exceptional and the grounds compelling”.
I note that Court One has acted for Lyon in respect to weathertightness issues since at least 2022. Further, Mr Cary has relevant qualifications and had previously “undertaken thermography, leak and moisture testing of circa 900 properties” when he provided services to the construction industry from 2012 to 2016. 7 It follows, Lyon was not only aware of the FBC report prior to the hearing but understood its significance (or lack thereof) but did not adduce it in evidence at the original hearing.
Lyon apparently overlooked the report when preparing its case. I have considered whether the circumstances are exceptional. Mr Wood detailed a different approach that Lyon wanted to argue based on the FBC report. It seems this argument may pivot from Lyon’s earlier claims by departing from Lyon’s previous focus on the internal active leaking to the bedroom, which Lyon at hearing argued was coming from the eastern or southern walls.
I do not see these circumstances as exceptional. Rather, it seems that Lyon wishes to argue its case differently with the benefit of hindsight; or worse, is applying for a rehearing “to delay the evil hour when a judgment, if I can call the Tenancy Tribunal decision that, might be executed against it”. 8 7 Trent Cary’s affidavit dated 7 May 2025 para 4. 8 Sharp DCJ’s comment – see the Tribunal’s Order dated 10 November 2025 at [18] 484646
Potentially, an applicant’s failure to bring to adduce evidence at the hearing (even if for inexplicable reasons) could provide “compelling grounds” if the absent evidence is cogent and “game changing”.
Lyon’s submissions include the subheading, “The body corporate knew about the wider cladding and joinery issues” and submits that, if so, there was a miscarriage of justice. However, the body corporate has never argued it was unaware of these issues. The wider cladding and joinery issues were part of the known background narrative.
Many units at the York Street complex had weathertightness issues. The FBC report confirmed some of Lyon’s unit’s weathertightness issues. Significantly for this case, Mr Cary was intensely involved in the weathertightness issues involving the unit. He was at loggerheads with the body corporate not about whether the body corporate should address the issues but rather how the body corporate should address them.
The Tribunal’s original decision set out some of that interplay. A sample of that is the following interaction taken from the Tribunal’s reasons: 9
On 22 February 2023, Grove Darlow wrote to Court One giving formal notice that the BC required access to the unit, stating that the body corporate:
...[R]equires access to P 7 in accordance with s 80(1)(a) of the Unit Titles Act (Act) on Thursday 2 March 2023 at 2pm or at any other reasonable time in the 3 weeks from the date with reasonable notice to your client.
The purpose of the access is to view the condition of the unit for the purposes of ascertaining compliance with obligations under the Act.
On 24 February 2023, Court One responded: We will take instructions. Could you please tell us, as our client will want to know if it wants its own expert present, who will be attending on behalf of the body corporate?
That day, Grove Darlow replied: The BC intends to have an expert present (yet to be determined but possibly Forensic Building Consultants) along with a member of the building management team (One Place).
Court One replied the same day requesting a “proposed scope of investigation”: Once you know who the expert is please provide a properly substantiated proposed scope of the investigation by them so our client can fairly consider.
Grove Darlow tersely responded: You know very well a BC is entitled to inspection without providing “substantiation” for any inspection rationale. Either your client complies with the statutory obligation to permit the BC to inspect, or he doesn’t. If he doesn’t the BC is thereby unable to discharge its statutory function and is thereby prevented from doing so by your client OR it applies for a mandatory injunction and costs. Its remarkably simply. 9 The Tribunal’s original decision of 10 November 2025, at [122] ffg. 484647 Over to your client
Court One batted back: That is not the situation that you have presented to our client. You have an undisclosed consultant who will be undertaking an unknown scope of investigation. This is against the background of an imminent application for a section 74 scheme the basis of which you don't want to tell us about ahead of time. Our client only wants what is fair, to have the opportunity to decide if it needs to instruct its consultant to attend, and that cannot be done without it being provided with the very modest information that has been requested. Over to your client
On 27 February 2023 Grove Darlow emailed Court One: Your client is being obstructive; Mr Carey is preventing the BC from discharging its lawful duty.
On 3 March 2023, One Place asked its then building consultant, Forensic Building Consultants, to work in with the unit owner’s preferred expert, Barry Gill from Veron. Forensic Building responded it could not assist.
That interaction takes place against the background narrative that the parties knew the unit had incipient weathertightness issues. The FBC report is consistent with that narrative. The report may have been useful in explaining the background, but it is not surprising evidence, and it would not have changed the essential narrative. It is not game changing evidence.
The FBC report is not fresh evidence. Nor are the circumstances apropos the FBC report exceptional or the grounds for admitting it compelling. Decision
Lyon has not established that the Tribunal’s original decision involves or may involve a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice. Lyon’s application for a rehearing must be refused.

Tenancy Tribunal case 9048464 — Mould in Parnell, Auckland

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 9048464 — Mould in Parnell, Auckland

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