Tenant's Rehearing Application Dismissed by Tenancy Tribunal
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed a tenant's request for a rehearing because the new evidence provided was not significantly different from what could have been presented during the initial hearing.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to a rehearing only if new evidence becomes available that was not reasonably obtainable at the original hearing.
📖 What the law says
This section allows the Tenancy Tribunal to order a rehearing if a significant mistake or unfairness has happened or might 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 tenant's application for a rehearing was dismissed due to lack of new evidence.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed a tenant's application for a rehearing, finding that the new evidence presented was not sufficiently new or unavailable during the original hearing.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4703729 1
[2025] NZTT 4703729
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Tenant
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Landlord
TENANCY ADDRESS: [Street address suppressed]
ORDER
1. The tenant’s name and identifying details must not be published.
2. The tenant’s application for rehearing is dismissed.
REASONS:
1. The tenant attended the hearing in person.
2. [NAME] attend the hearing for the landlord.
3. The tenant applies for a rehearing.
4. On 4 March 2025, the Tribunal made an order that the landlord must pay the tenant $2,459.12 for failing to lodge the bond, failing to maintain the premises, failing to insulate the premises, and for the filing fee.
5. On about 12 March 2025, the tenant applied for a rehearing on the grounds that:
[R]elevant evidence was not available and therefore was not considered by the adjudicator.
1. The confirmation email from the bond centre that the previous [tenant’s bond was not lodged].
2. I have photos and email with [NAME] and his Dad that they did not fix the windows for two years. The window handles fall off before my rent date start. The fixed dates is 26/06/22.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4703729 2
Legal principles
6. Section 105(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) 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”.
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.
9. The applicant need not establish an actual miscarriage of justice or substantial wrong, only that it may have occurred. However, 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.
10. The availability of new evidence may not justify a rehearing if that evidence was available and could have been obtained for the original hearing, even if it is better evidence than that given at the original hearing. In Mason v May [1995] NZTT 1328/95, the Tribunal said that, before a rehearing will be granted on the grounds of new evidence, “an applicant has to show that reasonable diligence was used to produce all relevant evidence at the hearing, and there must be an explanation as to why the new evidence only came to light after the hearing”.1
1 [NAME] v [NAME], and others [2022] NZTT 4370560, 4345477.
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
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4703729 3
The tenant’s new evidence
11. The tenant’s proposed new evidence is an email from the Bond Centre and photographs and messages between the tenant and [NAME], the landlord’s agent.
Bond evidence
12. The tenant relies on the Bond Centre email to prove that the landlord has previously failed to lodge a tenant’s bond with the Bond Centre in 2016. On that basis she would submit that the Tribunal should order a higher amount for exemplary damages than the $333.33 it did.
13. However, if the tenant had wanted to prove the landlord had previously failed to lodge, she could have obtained the evidence she now submits and submitted it at the earlier hearing.
14. Nor does the evidence does not establish the landlord did not lodge the bond in 2016. The Bond Centre’s email indicates it was looking for current bonds and is equivocal: “This does not necessarily mean we do not have a bond lodged for you”.
15. The tenant’s friend will purportedly say in evidence that she received the bond from the landlord at the end of the tenancy. This evidence is hearsay in its current form and therefore of limited value. Again, even if the friend were available to give such evidence in person, it was evidence that was reasonably available but was not called at the first hearing.
Photographs and messages evidence
16. The tenant’s new evidence of photographs and messages included an email in which she complains about the windows, including that “the handles fall off”. The photographs purport to show windows missing handles over a two-year timeframe.
17. The tenant says she found the photographs saved in a Google and the messages on an old phone after the hearing.
18. This is evidence that was available to the tenant if she had exercised reasonable diligence to obtain all relevant evidence prior to the original hearing. The evidence was already in her possession, she simply did not locate it until after the hearing when she had opportunity to consider the deficiencies in her case.
19. The evidence was available to the tenant prior to the substantive hearing. It is not new evidence. The tenant’s inability to locate the evidence earlier cannot be a ground for a rehearing.
Conclusion
20. I am not satisfied that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has or may have occurred or is likely to occur in respect to the Tribunal’s order. Therefore, the Tribunal does not have the power to order a rehearing.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4703729 4
21. The application for a rehearing is dismissed.
Non-publication
22. Non-publication of the tenant’s name and identifying details is ordered for this order to preserve the non-publication order that the Tribunal made in its original decision.
Addendum
23. The application for rehearing having been dealt with, the Tribunal’s stay of its original order lapses.
24. The landlord must now immediately pay the tenant the sum the Tribunal ordered.
[NAME] 16 May 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4703729 5
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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4703729 6
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:
239838647: , Mairangi Bay, Auckland 0630 414901822: NORTH SHORE | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA KI ŌKAHUKURA
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The tenant's application for rehearing was based on evidence that was not reasonably obtainable before the original hearing.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The tenant attempted to use evidence from a bond center email that was available before the original hearing.
- The tenant tried to introduce photographs and messages as new evidence, but these were already in her possession before the original hearing.
- The tenant sought to use hearsay evidence from a friend, which was not called at the first hearing despite being reasonably available.
- The tenant requested a rehearing based on evidence that was not new or different enough to warrant reconsideration.
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 requested a rehearing because they believed new evidence was available that could affect the outcome.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to dismiss the application because the new evidence was not sufficiently new or unavailable during the original hearing.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 105 was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was whether the new evidence was reasonably available during the original hearing.
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 that any new evidence they wish to present was not reasonably available during the original hearing.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The email from the Bond Centre and photographs and messages between the tenant and the landlord's agent were presented as new evidence.