Tenant's Rehearing Request Denied Due to Severe Meth Contamination
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal denied a tenant's request for a rehearing because of severe methamphetamine contamination at the rental property. The tenant claimed she couldn't attend the initial hearing due to incorrect contact information, but the Tribunal ruled that there was no proof of procedural errors or new evidence that would change the outcome.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant is not entitled to a rehearing if they fail to demonstrate procedural unfairness or new evidence affecting the outcome.
📖 What the law says
This section allows the Tenancy Tribunal to order a rehearing if a significant mistake or injustice 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, and the other party must be informed.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed the tenant's request for a rehearing due to methamphetamine contamination.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed a tenant's application for a rehearing due to severe methamphetamine contamination at the property. The tenant argued that she could not participate in the original hearing due to incorrect contact information. However, the Tribunal found no evidence of procedural unfairness or new evidence that could affect the outcome.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4993109 1
[2025] NZTT 4993109
TENANCY TRIBUNAL - [Event location suppressed]
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: [Tenancy address suppressed]
ORDER
1. The Tribunal suppresses the landlord’s name and identifying details.
2. The application for rehearing is dismissed and the stay of proceedings is lifted.
3. The order made by the Tribunal on 21 November 2024 stands and may be enforced henceforth.
Reasons:
1. The Tribunal made an order on 21 November 2024 granting possession to the landlord after notice was given to terminate the tenancy due to extreme levels of methamphetamine contamination at the property. The tenant now seeks a rehearing, asserting that she was unable to participate in the original hearing because the Tribunal did not have her correct contact number.
2. 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”.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4993109 2
3. 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.
4. 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?
5. For the following reasons the tenant has failed to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
6. While the tenant could not participate in the original hearing, this alone does not justify a rehearing unless there is evidence of procedural unfairness. In this case, there is no evidence to suggest that the Tribunal acted improperly or that the procedural process was flawed. The tenant did not raise any procedural issues as the basis of her application.
7. The tenant has also failed to provide any new evidence or arguable defence that would lead the Tribunal to make a different decision. The contamination at the property was found to be at extreme levels, posing significant health and safety risks. This was a critical factor in the Tribunal’s decision to terminate the tenancy and grant possession to the landlord. The tenant’s disagreement with the decision or the unfortunate timing of her circumstances does not constitute a miscarriage of justice under section 105(1) RTA.
8. While the Tribunal empathises with the tenant’s situation—particularly the difficulty of securing alternative accommodation near the Christmas period, her concerns for her elderly mother, and her unsuccessful attempts to find housing through the Ministry of Social Development (MSD)—the Tribunal cannot take personal factors into account in determining whether the original decision was just. Allowing the tenant and her mother to remain in the contaminated property would only compound the risks to their health and safety.
9. The Tribunal encourages the tenant to continue working with MSD for urgent assistance. MSD has resources designed to help individuals in precarious housing situations, particularly in emergency cases like this. Additionally, the tenant may wish to contact community housing organisations or local support groups for further assistance in finding accommodation.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4993109 3
Conclusion
10. The tenant has not established that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred. Accordingly, the application for a rehearing is dismissed, and the stay of proceedings is lifted. The original order made on 21 November 2024 stands and is enforceable.
[NAME] 19 December 2024
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4993109 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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 4993109 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 tenant did not provide evidence of procedural unfairness.
- There was no new evidence presented that could affect the outcome.
- The tenant's personal difficulties did not constitute a miscarriage of justice.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The tenant claimed she could not participate in the original hearing due to lack of correct contact information.
- The tenant disagreed with the decision and the level of methamphetamine contamination.
- The tenant's desire to remain in the contaminated property due to personal circumstances was not considered valid.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal denied the tenant's request for a rehearing due to severe methamphetamine contamination at the property.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the tenant should be allowed a rehearing because she missed the original hearing due to incorrect contact information.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to dismiss the request for a rehearing because there was no evidence of procedural unfairness or new evidence that could affect the outcome.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, specifically section 105(1), was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the lack of evidence showing procedural unfairness or new evidence that could affect the outcome.
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 have accurate contact information to avoid missing important hearings.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify any particular evidence or documents that mattered.