Tenant's Rehearing Application Dismissed by Tenancy Tribunal
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed a tenant's request for a rehearing because the tenant did not provide enough proof that a serious mistake or injustice had occurred during the initial hearing.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant cannot obtain a rehearing based solely on the belief that the Tribunal misinterpreted the law or lacked sufficient evidence.
📖 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 might happen. An application for a rehearing must be submitted to the Tribunal 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 Tribunal dismissed the application for rehearing due to insufficient evidence of a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed a tenant's application for rehearing, finding insufficient evidence to demonstrate a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice. The Tribunal noted that the application did not meet the high standard required under section 105 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5158858 1
[2025] NZTT 5158858
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT DUNEDIN | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA KI ŌTEPOTI
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Tenant
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Landlord
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. The application for rehearing is dismissed.
Reasons:
1. All parties attended the hearing, by telephone.
2. On 12/3/2025 the Tribunal made an order declining jurisdiction.
3. On 17/3/2025 applied for a rehearing on the grounds that:
a. The Adjudicator mis-interpreted the exclusion test in section 5(1)(n) set out in [NAME] v [NAME] & Ors Lower Hutt CIV-2006-032-36.
b. Lack of evidence and weight was given to the written tenancy agreement,
c. [NAME]’ behaviour by withdrawing part way through the hearing was misconduct.
4. 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”.
5. To find that grounds for a rehearing exist, the applicant does not need to prove that an actual miscarriage or substantial wrong, only the potential for that, or that
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5158858 2
it may have occurred prima facie, Ward and Knight-Ward v Taitau [2021] NZDC 975.
6. In the District Court judgement of Wellington City Council v McMillan [2003] DCR 50, His Honour Judge Touhy confirmed that the words “substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice”, set a high standard, stating:
“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.
…
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. 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 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 this 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.”
7. 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.
8. 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?
9. For the following reasons [NAME] has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
a. The evidence supports that [NAME] main use of the premises, owned by her brother, was as her place of residence and had been so since 2020.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5158858 3
b. Although the tenancy agreement between the parties was on a standard form promoted by MBIE for residential tenancies there was only an implied agreement that all or any of the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 applied.
c. For the Tribunal to have jurisdiction the parties must agree in writing that all or any of the provisions of the Act apply to the tenancy.
d. Unfortunately, I do not consider the fact the parties signed the agreement sufficient by itself to make it explicit that the Act applied.
e. In addition, the roles and responsibilities provided to [NAME] set out further expectations of “the tenant” and “landlord” not covered in the Act.
f. For these reasons I do not consider the tenancy agreement goes far enough to meet the requirements of section 8.
g. However, I would comment that it would be prudent for both [NAME] and [NAME] to make clear in future tenancy agreements whether it is intended that the Act applies.
h. The evidence supports that when [NAME] connection to the last hearing failed, he immediately contacted Tenancy Services and was advised that the hearing had finished.
i. I do not consider there was any misconduct on the part of [NAME] with regard to the disconnection from the hearing.
10. I consider no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred and the application for rehearing fails.
11. Although suppression was granted to the tenant in the original Order, I have declined to continue the redaction because the tenant was again unsuccessful.
[NAME]
2 April 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5158858 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.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].
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/
Reasons:
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The tenant's main use of the premises was as her place of residence since 2020.
- The tenancy agreement was a standard form for residential tenancies, but there was only an implied agreement for the Act to apply.
- For the Tribunal to have jurisdiction, the parties must agree in writing that the Act applies to the tenancy.
- The signed agreement alone was not enough to explicitly state that the Act applied.
- The roles and responsibilities provided to the tenant included expectations not covered by the Act.
- The tenant's brother immediately contacted Tenancy Services after his connection failed and was told the hearing had finished.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The adjudicator's alleged misinterpretation of the exclusion test in section 5(1)(n) was not a ground for rehearing.
- The claim of insufficient evidence and too much weight given to the written tenancy agreement was rejected.
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 tenant's application for a rehearing.
What was the dispute about?
The tenant believed the Tribunal had made a mistake in interpreting the law and had not given enough weight to the written tenancy agreement.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the tenant had not met the high standard required to show a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice, as outlined in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Section 105 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the tenant's claim that the Tribunal had misinterpreted the law and had not given enough weight to the written tenancy agreement.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the tenant 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 to support their claim for a rehearing, meeting the high standard required under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify the exact evidence or documents that mattered.