Hearing Adjourned Due to Landlord's Unavailability
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal at Hamilton rescheduled the hearing because the landlord had an unavoidable full-day commitment that required their presence.
⚖️ Legal holding
A landlord may obtain an adjournment if they provide evidence of an unavoidable commitment requiring their presence.
📖 Technical summary
The hearing was adjourned due to the landlord's unavailability.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal at Hamilton adjourned the hearing due to the landlord's unavailability. The landlord provided evidence of an unavoidable full-day commitment that could not be changed.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5137528 1
[2025] NZTT 5137528
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT HAMILTON | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA KI KIRIKIRIROA
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. If either party intends to produce any additional documents at the next hearing, they must send two copies to the Tribunal at least 7 days before the next hearing date.
2. If the respondent also has a claim they want dealt with at the next hearing, they must file their application with Tenancy Services within 7 days of this order and refer to the current application number.
3. The hearing is adjourned.
Reasons:
1. The landlord applied for an adjournment. They are unable to attend the hearing because they have a commitment for a full day event that was organised for the same day.
2. Evidence was provided that this commitment could not be changed and that their presence was required.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5137528 2
3. The hearing is adjourned, and tenancy services will contact the parties with a new hearing date and time.
T Harris
20 March 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5137528 3
Please read carefully: Visit justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals for more information on rehearings and appeals.
Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has happened. For example: • you did not get the letter telling you the date of the hearing, or • the adjudicator improperly admitted or rejected evidence, or • new evidence, relating to the original application, has become available.
You must give reasons and evidence to support your application for a rehearing. A rehearing will not be granted [NAME] because you disagree with the decision. You must apply within five working days of the decision using the Application for Rehearing form: justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf
Right of Appeal Both the landlord and the tenant can file an appeal. You should file your appeal at the District Court where the original hearing took place. The cost for an appeal is $260. You must apply within 10 working days after the decision is issued using this Appeal to the District Court form: justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals
Grounds for an appeal You can appeal if you think the decision was wrong, but not because you don’t like the decision. For some cases, there’ll be no right to appeal. For example, you can’t appeal: • against an interim order • a final order for the payment of less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work worth less than $1000.
Enforcement Where the Tribunal made an order about money or property this is called a civil debt. The Ministry of Justice Collections Team can assist with enforcing civil debt. You can contact the collections team on [PHONE] or go to justice.govt.nz/fines/civil-debt for forms and information.
Notice to a party ordered to pay money or vacate premises, etc. Failure to comply with any order may result in substantial additional costs for enforcement. It may also involve being ordered to appear in the District Court for an examination of your means or seizure of your property.
If you require further help or information regarding this matter, visit tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing- decisions or phone Tenancy Services on [PHONE].
Mēna ka hiahia koe ki ētahi atu awhina, kōrero ranei mo tēnei take, haere ki tenei ipurangi tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, waea atu ki Ratonga Takirua ma runga [PHONE] ranei.
https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals/ https://www.justice.govt.nz/fines/about-civil-debt/ https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions http://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5137528 4
A manaomia nisi faamatalaga poo se fesoasoani, e uiga i lau mataupu, asiasi ifo le matou aupega tafailagi: tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, pe fesootai mai le Tenancy Services i le numera [PHONE].
Reasons:
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The landlord provided proof that they had an unavoidable full-day commitment.
- The landlord showed that their presence was required for the commitment.
- The commitment could not be rescheduled according to the evidence presented.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The hearing was adjourned because the landlord had an unavoidable full-day commitment.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the landlord's full-day commitment was sufficient grounds to reschedule the hearing.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to adjourn the hearing because the landlord provided evidence showing that their commitment was unavoidable and required their presence.
Which laws or rules were applied?
No specific laws or rules were applied in this decision.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The most important argument was the landlord's evidence of an unavoidable full-day commitment requiring their presence.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the landlord, allowing the hearing to be adjourned.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation may also request an adjournment if they can provide evidence of an unavoidable commitment requiring their presence.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify the exact nature of the evidence provided by the landlord.