Tenancy Tribunal Rejects Tenant’s Rehearing Request

OUTCOME: Dismissed

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5469469 1

[2026] NZTT 5469469

TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT REMOTE LOCATION | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA

APPLICANT: [redacted]

Landlord

RESPONDENT: [redacted]

Tenant

TENANCY ADDRESS: [Tenancy address suppressed]

ORDER

1. An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord’s name and identifying details.

2. The application for rehearing is dismissed.

Reasons:

1. Both parties attended a rehearing hearing by video.

2. On 30 April 2026, the Tribunal made an order terminating the tenancy and for rent arrears.

3. Ms [RESPONDENT] applied for a rehearing on the grounds that she could not attend the hearing because the link had been sent to her 31 days before the hearing date. She also claimed that the landlord was in breach of its obligations under s38 Residential Tenancies Act. Ms [RESPONDENT] maintained that a landlord cannot terminate a tenancy when it is also in breach of its obligations. She referred to s56(4) RTA and said that the Tribunal had made an error of law by terminating the tenancy when the landlord is also in breach of its obligations.

4. I directed Ms [RESPONDENT]’s rehearing application to be set down for hearing. I also granted a stay of proceedings, strictly on the condition that Ms [RESPONDENT] pay

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5469469 2

current rent as it fell due until the rehearing application had been determined. Ms [RESPONDENT] did not comply with that condition, the stay of proceedings lapsed, and the landlord has started enforcement action.

Legal Principles – Rehearing Application

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.

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.

8. In Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, the District Court 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:

[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.

[20] Secondly, if a mere erroneous decision is enough, whether the error is factual or legal or both, it would enable parties to in effect appeal any decision twice: once to the very Tribunal which made it by way of an application for rehearing, and then again to the District Court against the grant or refusal of the application for rehearing. Not only does that offend the general hierarchical nature of the appeal system, it would also make the time limit for filing notice of appeal against an original decision nugatory.

Has a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred?

9. For the following reasons Ms [RESPONDENT] has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.

10. Ms [RESPONDENT] has not identified any error with the Tribunal process. The Notice of Hearing was sent to her on 30 March 2026. That notice contained a link for attending the hearing. She acknowledges that in her rehearing application. Her

https://www.westlaw.co.nz/maf/wlnz/app/document?docguid=I71a82471496811e6b8f3f870462e5362&&src=rl&hitguid=I91c0e275e01f11e08eefa443f89988a0&snippets=true&startChunk=1&endChunk=1&isTocNav=true&tocDs=AUNZ_NZ_LEGCOMM_TOC#anchor_I91c0e275e01f11e08eefa443f89988a0

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5469469 3

complaint seems to be that the Tribunal should have resent the link with the reminders sent for the hearing.

11. Once the Notice of Hearing has been served, it is up to the party to attend the hearing. It is not a procedural error by the Tribunal, if the party does not retain a copy of the Notice of Hearing and makes no attempt to obtain instructions to attend until after the scheduled hearing time. Once the matter is scheduled, correct for the Tribunal to proceed and hear case. [NAME] v [NAME] [MA 100/02] 10 October 2002.

12. The other matters raised by Ms [RESPONDENT] relate to alleged errors of law and/or incorrect findings and are not relevant considerations for a rehearing application. However, I note:

a. Ms [RESPONDENT]’s application for breach of quiet enjoyment was dismissed under a previous application.

b. Some of Ms [RESPONDENT]’s allegations regarding quiet enjoyment relate to matters well outside of the landlord’s obligations or control (such as vibration or humming from a Council site).

c. A notice to terminate the tenancy was set aside as retaliatory under a previous application. That notice is not relevant to this application.

d. There is no error of law by failing to consider or apply s56(4) RTA. There is no s56(4) RTA, and there is no provision in the RTA which prevents a landlord from applying for termination where rent is 21 days in arrears even if the tenant alleges that the landlord is also in breach.

13. Ms [RESPONDENT] did not advance any arguable defence to the landlord’s application. She acknowledged the rent arrears and said that she intends to pay them but is unable to do so until issues with ACC have been resolved. As noted in the 30 April 2026 Order:

Rent has not been paid since 25 February 2026. The tenant’s submission acknowledged that rent is owed, but said that arrears have arisen because of failures by ACC. Even if that is correct, the tenant remains responsible for paying her rent. The RTA provides that, if rent is 21 days in arrears at the date of an application, the Tribunal shall terminate the tenancy.

14. The application for rehearing is dismissed. The Order dated 30 April 2026 remains in effect.

[NAME] 20 May 2026

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5469469 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, or the failure to make an order, where the amount in dispute on appeal is

less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work, or the failure to make an order, where the value of the

work in dispute on appeal is 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/

__________________________________________________________________________________ 5469469 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: