I want to raise another possibility that the requestor may not have considered. I had a case heard in the tenancy tribunal (rather than the disputes tribunal).

The judgment of the first adjudicator was in my favor. But the court then granted a re-hearing on the grounds that the respondent had evidence that was relevant that he failed to provide in the first hearing. That is to say the first judgment was thrown out and a re-hearing was granted.

The judgment of the second adjudicator was in my favor. The judicial reasoning was the same. The respondent had not produced the evidence that was the reason or grounds for the re-hearing. But the court then granted a re-re-hearing on the grounds that the respondent had evidence that was relevant that he failed to provide in the first and second hearing. That is to say the second judgment was thrown out and a re-re-hearing was granted.

The judgment of the third adjudicator states that: 1) The respondent provided the evidence that was reason or grounds for the re-hearing (which is blatantly false if you look at the court records no such evidence was produced). 2) The respondent 'Mike Cotton and Gulf View Property Management LLC' (who I named from the courts from my lease) was not Mike Cotton it was the LLC company which cannot be liable.
3) An importer counts as a reasonably skilled and qualified tradesperson to okay the installation of a hard-wired electrical applicance in a manner that was expressly prohibited by the manufacturers (in a manner that the manufacturers states voids the warantee on the applicance).
The judgment of the third adjudicator (Tam) was apparently 'suppressed' even though the respondent did not apply for name suppression (that I know of) and I had no opportunity to oppose suppression.

I appealed the 3rd ruling from the Tenancy Tribunal with the District Court.

The District Court delayed and delayed and delayed the proceedings. The respondent no-showed and they re-scheduled.

Finally there was a hearing.

The judge upheld the judgment of the third adjudicator. The judgment is apparently 'suppressed'. I don't have any idea what that means.

Apparently I owe no court fees. It is just that the entire thing has been 'supressed'. Well, actually, I paid $40 filing fee to file things with the tenancy tribunal.

So, you see, justice does not live here. Is not to be found here. The NZ courts and tribunals choose not to uphold the law. Reading the judgments... Well, it's a farce. Obviously and clearly. Just nonsense garbage output.

I am not sure what it is. The first two were sensible (not just because they were in my favor, but they were sensible). But then something happened. I am not sure what... If the intstallation was Prestige Building Compliance and the Auckland City Council has wired up most of the cheaper high-rise buildings in Auckland in such a manner in order to kick-start the fire-economy (burn the city down for insurance money) or quite what is going on.

I suppose it is a lesson to me in how it is that nobody in their right mind would voluntarily choose to study or practice law, in New Zealand. Because the courts are some combination of unwilling / unable to do their job at the most basic level.

I think this is relevant because you are trying to understand what is going on. Throwing out a published judgment (or suppressing judgments for no other reasons than trying to hide or cover up shitty judgments by adjudicators or judges who assert false facts or refuse to acknowledge obvious facts, who refuse to acknowledge half the laws, who cannot or will not reason appropriately over the laws is something that tenancy tribunal and district court have chosen to engage in as a matter of (documented and published) fact.

Also simply not granting a hearing.

Another strategy that there is is that the judge orders the file be re-filed and re-re-filed and re-re-re-filed. That is to say the Justice takes their job to be to order or instruct the applicant to write a thesis for them! To bloat their filings. To ensure the findings are lengthy enough so the judge thinks they can reasonably claim to have become genuinely confused and ignored various aspects of pieces of evidence etc. Teh judge can order for there to be case management conference after case management conference after case management conference so the Judge can bully and abuse the applicant for their filings that need to be re-worked and re-done and re-filed.

It's quite the scummy scummy scam.

It's how the Universities conduct their 'business' where they refuse to allow graduate research students to complete their research in a timely fashion because they spend all their time bullying the student saying they will be forced to fail them if they submit their thesis and they need to make all these changes which they only suggest or demand or require because they are trying to set the student up to fail.

Why?

In the academic context apparently it's because it's sooooooo competitive. The people who presently get the funding (who are on staff etc) need to be seen to be most productive, I guess. So their students need to straggle along behind them. Or be seen to be.

I don't know what it is with the courts. You pay tehm you pay them you pay them you pay them you pay them and when you are done paying them then you lie flat or die or walk away from everything you have and die.

or similar.

It's the great kiwi plan for 'how low can we go' to ensure nothing of any value is produced, here.

Justice does not live here.