Tenant's Request for Rehearing After Settlement Agreement Change of Mind Denied
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal denied a tenant's request for a rehearing after the tenant changed their mind about a previously agreed settlement agreement. The Tribunal ruled that a rehearing cannot be granted merely because a party has changed their mind.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant cannot obtain a rehearing merely because they have changed their mind after agreeing to a settlement.
📖 What the law says
This rule allows the Tenancy Tribunal to order a rehearing of a case if a significant mistake or unfairness has happened or might happen. A request for a rehearing must be submitted within 5 working days of the decision, though the Tribunal can sometimes allow more time.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant's request for a rehearing was denied as he had merely changed his mind after agreeing to a settlement.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal denied a tenant's request for a rehearing after the tenant changed their mind about a previously agreed settlement agreement. The Tribunal ruled that a rehearing cannot be granted merely because a party has changed their mind.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5146857 1
[2025] NZTT 5146857
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT CHRISTCHURCH | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA KI ŌTAUTAHI
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Tenant
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Landlord
TENANCY ADDRESS: Unit/[ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. The application for rehearing is dismissed.
2. The stay of proceedings granted on 3 March 2025 is lifted.
Reasons:
1. Mr [NAME] attended the hearing. The landlord was phoned on the number provided but the calls went to voicemail.
2. On 26 February 2025 the Tribunal recorded, in an order, an agreed settlement between the parties whereby the tenancy was changed from a one-year fixed term ending on 26 January 2026 to a periodic tenancy, and [NAME] would release the bond of $1,600.00 to the landlord.
3. On 28 February 2025 [NAME] applied for a rehearing. The main ground upon which he applied for a rehearing is that, after the hearing, [NAME] told him that they would not be able to assist him with payment of another bond within a year of paying the bond for this tenancy. He also said, in his application, that he would prefer to give only one weeks’ notice rather than 28 days (now reduced to 21 days: s 51 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986).
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5146857 2
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. 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. 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?
6. [NAME] did not claim that there was any procedural error. He did not claim that there was any error in the way the hearing was conducted or that he did not have the opportunity to present his case or consider the terms of the agreement before agreeing to them. He has essentially simply changed his mind after he made the agreement. This is not sufficient to establish the grounds for a rehearing.
7. [NAME]’s application for rehearing is therefore dismissed.
[NAME]
25 March 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5146857 3
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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5146857 4
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 rejected
- [Name] simply changed their mind after agreeing to the settlement and did not provide evidence of a procedural error or a miscarriage of justice.
- [Name] did not show that something went wrong with the Tribunal’s procedure or that they were unable to present their case properly.
- [Name] requested a rehearing based on a change in personal circumstances and preferences, which is not a valid reason for a rehearing.
- [Name] did not provide new evidence that was not reasonably available at the first hearing and could have affected the outcome.
- [Name] wanted a rehearing solely because they were unhappy with the decision, which is not a sufficient reason for a rehearing.
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.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the tenant could get a rehearing after changing their mind about a settlement agreement.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided against granting the rehearing because the tenant had merely changed their mind after agreeing to the settlement, which is not a valid reason for 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 most important argument was that a rehearing cannot be granted merely because a party has changed their mind after agreeing to a settlement.
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 understand that a rehearing will not be granted merely because they have changed their mind after agreeing to a settlement.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify any particular evidence or documents that mattered.