Tenant's Rehearing Application Dismissed by Tenancy Tribunal
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed a tenant's request for a rehearing, ruling that the tenant did not provide enough proof of a serious mistake or injustice. The Tribunal reviewed new evidence but concluded it was not strong enough to justify reconsidering the original decision.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is entitled to a rehearing only if they can demonstrate a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.
📖 What the law says
This section 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 claimant's application for rehearing was dismissed due to insufficient evidence of a miscarriage of justice.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed a tenant's application for rehearing, finding that the tenant failed to establish a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice. The Tribunal considered new evidence but found it insufficient to warrant a rehearing.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4883032 1
[2025] NZTT 4883032
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT NORTH SHORE | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA KI ŌKAHUKURA
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Tenant
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Landlord
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. The application for rehearing is dismissed.
Reasons:
1. Both parties attended the phone hearing.
2. [NAME] was assisted by a Mandarin interpreter at the hearing on 5 December 2024. No interpreter was arranged for today’s phone hearing to consider [NAME]’s application for re-hearing. [NAME] was offered the opportunity to seek an adjournment of today’s hearing so that the Ministry of Justice could arrange a Mandarin interpreter, however, [NAME] declined and confirmed (twice) that she wished to proceed today without an interpreter.
3. On 13 December 2024, the Tribunal made an order that the landlord pay the tenant a total of $4,890.00 in compensation and exemplary damages.
4. On 20 December 2024, [NAME] applied for a rehearing on the grounds that new evidence was available in relation to the servicing of the premises’ ranchslider doors and new evidence to show there was a key for all ranchslider doors. [NAME] also raised other matters which she said had been overlooked or misunderstood by the adjudicator, including that the upstairs ranchslider opened onto a deck which was high above the ground and therefore it was not a point of
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4883032 2
entry to the premises, and that the video evidence produced by the tenant at the hearing was not served on her prior to the hearing.
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. 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.
New evidence – maintenance of doors and windows
9. In support of the application for re-hearing, [NAME] produced an email dated 20 December 2024 from “[NAME].” In the email, an employee states [COMPANY] carried out works on the windows and doors of the premises in 2012 and that at that time, all the windows and doors were in good working order.
10. The tenant’s tenancy commenced on 16 December 2017. Evidence that the doors were serviced in 2012 would not have impacted my findings that the doors were not lockable during the tenancy. Furthermore, the landlord did not demonstrate that the “new” evidence was not available at the hearing held on 5 December 2024. When asked why they did not produce the evidence then, [NAME] stated today, “we didn’t realise.”
11. I am not satisfied the “new” evidence was unavailable at the time of the hearing. I also note that, even if it had been produced, it does not prove the state of the doors and/or windows during the tenancy.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4883032 3
New evidence – key for all ranchslider doors
12. In support of the application for re-hearing, [NAME] produced a photograph taken by [NAME] on 24 January 2025 which showed a key in a ranchslider lock. [NAME] stated the photo was taken in the dining room. [NAME] says it is new evidence to show a lock was in place that would operate all the ranchsliders in the premises, which is counter to the tenants’ evidence that the ranchsliders could not be locked, and pieces of wood were used in the tracks of the ranchsliders to keep them from being opened from the outside.
13. As with the evidence of maintenance, [NAME] was unable to say why this evidence was unavailable at the time of the hearing. A re-hearing is not an opportunity for a party to re-run their case. Furthermore, evidence that a lock was in place in January 2025 is not evidence of whether a lock was in place during the tenancy.
Upstairs ranchslider opens to upper deck
14. In support of the application for re-hearing, [NAME] produced a photograph of the exterior of the premises. [NAME] says the photo shows the upstairs ranchslider opened onto an exterior deck on the second storey which does not have access down to the ground level. [NAME] says the tenants claimed the door was external when in fact it is not.
15. The upstairs ranchslider is clearly external. It opens to the outside, which in this case was to a deck. I accept there is no access from the deck directly to the ground. That is not a matter on which I made a determination.
16. As recorded at paragraph 38 of the original decision, I noted that the upstairs bedroom had a ranchslider that opened to a [NAME] deck. That is consistent with the photograph now produced. The evidence which the landlord now seeks to produce has no bearing on the issues determined.
Tenant’s video evidence not served on landlord
17. [NAME] submits the tenant’s video evidence showing that the ranchsliders could not be locked was not served on her prior to the hearing, and therefore she was not given an opportunity to watch it prior to the hearing.
18. It is correct that the tenant did not serve copies of the videos until the day of the hearing. The tenant states they were instructed by Tenancy Services to bring copies of the videos on USB sticks to the hearing.
19. While all parties are entitled to be served with all evidence prior to a hearing, the tenant’s failure to do so in this matter did not result in any material prejudice to the landlord. That is because the tenant’s claims that the ranchslider doors
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4883032 4
were not lockable were set out in the tenant’s application form filed on 2 June 2024 and were further described in written submissions filed by the tenants on 10 November 2024. The written submissions referred to the tenants’ intention to produce video evidence at the hearing. The video evidence produced at the hearing was consistent with the written material filed and claims made by the tenants.
Other matters
20. [NAME] also raised other matters during the hearing to consider whether to grant a re-hearing. The other matters raised included attempts by the landlord to re- argue their case and/or to raise new claims. As explained during the hearing today, a re-hearing is not an opportunity for a party to re-run their case and my focus must be on the matters before me at the original hearing.
[NAME]
26 February 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4883032 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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4883032 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:
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The tenant was awarded $4,890.00 in compensation and exemplary damages in the original decision.
- The upstairs ranchslider was clearly external, opening to a deck, which was consistent with the landlord's photograph.
- The tenant's claims about the ranchslider doors not being lockable were already detailed in their application and written submissions.
- The tenant's video evidence was consistent with their written material and claims, so the landlord was not materially prejudiced by late service.
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 claiming new evidence was available and that previous evidence was misunderstood.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided against the tenant because the new evidence was not deemed significant enough to warrant a rehearing.
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 whether the new evidence was substantial enough to indicate a miscarriage of justice.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the tenant.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure that any new evidence presented is substantial and directly relevant to the original decision.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence included emails about door maintenance and photographs showing a key for ranchslider doors.