Landlord's Rehearing Request Rejected by Tenancy Tribunal
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal denied a landlord's request for a rehearing, stating that the landlord had not shown that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice had occurred in the original decision.
⚖️ Legal holding
A landlord cannot obtain a rehearing based solely on dissatisfaction with the original decision or the presence of new evidence that was reasonably available earlier.
📖 What the law says
This rule allows the Tenancy Tribunal to order a rehearing of a case if a significant mistake or unfair outcome has happened or is likely to happen. An application for a rehearing must be submitted within 5 working days of the decision, though the Tribunal can allow more time.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed the landlord's application for a rehearing, finding no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.
📜 Headnote Official document
In a Tenancy Tribunal case, the landlord applied for a rehearing, arguing that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice had occurred. The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the landlord had not established the necessary grounds for a rehearing.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5021653 1
[2025] NZTT 5021653, 5047408
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT [Event location suppressed]
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. The application for rehearing is dismissed.
Reasons:
1. Both parties attended the hearing.
2. On 12 March 2025, the Tribunal made an order for the tenants to pay the landlord for the cost of lawn and garden work and refilling the gas bottle. The Tribunal also granted $1000.00 in exemplary damages to the tenants for the landlord’s breach of their quiet enjoyment. The landlord withdrew her application during the hearing for advertising cost, letting fee, disposal of monitor and repainting costs.
3. On 13 March 2025 , [NAME] applied for a rehearing on the grounds that there was a communication error about the letting fee, advertising costs, cars parked outside the main house and other facts that were “mistakenly misunderstood”. The landlord wanted a new hearing to raise more evidence and witnesses to prove the tenants agreed to pay compensation then changed their minds.
4. The landlord filed further submissions claiming that she was suffering mental health issues on the day of the hearing and that affected her ability to present
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5021653 2
her case. Furthermore, that I had misinterpreted s48 (7) Residential tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
5. 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”.
6. 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.
7. 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?
8. For the following reasons [NAME] has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing:
a) There has been no misinterpretation of s48 (7) RTA by me and finding that the Adjudicator was wrong in law is a matter for an Appeal to the District Court and not a rehearing application.
b) The landlord expanded her claims during the hearing to say she needed a Hindi interpreter to assist her in the hearing. There was a Hindi interpreter sitting in the hearing room throughout the entire hearing that was there for her use as well as the tenants. The landlord did not avail herself of the assistance of the interpreter during the hearing.
c) The landlord said she did not ask the Tribunal for an interpreter and did not ask during the hearing for the interpreter’s assistance.
d) The landlord did not give the impression that she was unduly stressed or not coping in the hearing. She was able to bring her husband and /or a support person to the hearing, but she chose not to. The landlord was clear, articulate, and assertive in the hearing. At no time was I of the opinion that she was not able to present her claim.
e) The landlord says that the two witnesses called by the tenants at the hearing were giving evidence under “duress.” I did not gain that impression and in fact both witnesses were members of the tenant’s family. There is nothing presented to me to substantiate this claim.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5021653 3
9. I do not consider that the landlord has proven her claim. The grounds for a rehearing are clear, where a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has, or may have occurred or is likely to occur.
10. There has been no procedural wrongs nor claims of new evidence to be presented that was not available before the hearing. Nothing raised in this rehearing application would have affected the outcome as I determined it to be in the 10 pages of my written order dated 12 March 2025.
11. My order of 12 March 2025 stands, and the rehearing application is dismissed.
[NAME] 23 April 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5021653 4
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 just 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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5021653 5
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 did not use the Hindi interpreter who was present throughout the hearing.
- The landlord appeared clear, articulate, and assertive during the original hearing.
- The Tribunal did not believe the tenant's witnesses were under duress.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The landlord's claim of a communication error about letting fees and advertising costs was not accepted as grounds for a rehearing.
- The landlord's claim of mental health issues affecting her ability to present her case was not accepted.
- The landlord's assertion that new evidence would prove the tenants agreed to compensation was not accepted.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed the landlord's application for a rehearing.
What was the dispute about?
The landlord requested a rehearing due to alleged misunderstandings and new evidence that was available during the original hearing.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided against granting a rehearing, finding that the landlord had not demonstrated a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 105(1) was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the lack of evidence showing a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the landlord who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure they provide strong evidence of a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice to successfully obtain a rehearing.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify any particular evidence or documents that mattered.