What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4523830 about?

The tribunal order states: The claim is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4523830?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4523830?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4523830?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9611818-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4523830 about?

The tribunal order states: The claim is dismissed.

How much money was awarded in case 4523830?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4523830?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4523830?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9611818-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4523830 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The claim is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.
The tenancy commenced on 06 April 2020 and was periodic.
On 28 February 2022, lawyers acting on behalf of the landlord/ owner in the sale and purchase agreement emailed the landlord, advising that upon the contract for sale and purchase becoming unconditional, they would need to serve a 90-day notice terminating the tenancy on the basis that the new owners sought vacant possession. The email was copied to the respondent who was at the material time engaged by the owner / landlord to sell the property. The lawyers email concluded by suggesting to the landlord that the respondent could “deliver” the notice. The respondent states that they then received instructions from the landlord to serve the notice on their behalf.
On Wednesday 02 March 2023, at 4.49pm, the respondent sent an email notice to the tenant on behalf of the landlord terminating the tenancy on 06 June 2022. The second sentence of the email states, “I have been asked to communicate with you regarding your tenancy”. The notice goes on to set on the grounds on which the notice is issued and the end date of the tenancy. The email notice ends with both the name of respondent and the landlord.
The tenant’s claim against the respondent is that they were not the “property manager”, and were not entitled the issue the notice on behalf of the landlord.
Section 51(2)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”) states that a landlord may terminate a tenancy by giving at least 90 days’ notice if: (b) the owner is required, under an unconditional agreement for sale the premises, to give the purchaser vacant possession.
Section 77 (1) of the Act provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants.
Section 2(1) of the Act defines a landlord in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, means the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement; and, where appropriate, includes .. (e) an agent of the landlord.
Agent is defined in section 2(1) of the Act as: in relation to any person who is a landlord or a tenant, means an agent of that person in that person’s capacity as landlord or tenant; and includes an employee of that person in that person’s capacity as landlord or tenant.
There are two relevant sources of agency law, the common law rules of agency, and the definition of landlord and tenant in section 2(1) of the Act.
In Mumby v Gary Brown Realty Ltd [2001] DCR 420, the Court stated that “the law is no different for agents acting under the Residential Tenancies Act than agent acting in any other capacity (at paragraph [31]). The primary common law rule is that an agent who merely acts as an intermediary for a principal, in this case the owner / landlord is not a party to the contract between the principal and the other party, in this case the tenant. Whether an agent is acting as an intermediary depends on the intention of the parties, which is determined objectively from the facts.
There is no dispute that the respondent did not have any involvement in the tenancy. Neither party considers the respondent to have acted as a property manager. The respondent is a real estate agent engaged by the landlord to sell the property. The owner / landlord has engaged the respondent to assist serve the notice. Pursuant to section 52(1) of the Act, any termination notice must be served by the landlord. In this case, the respondent meets the definition of agent and may serve the notice on behalf of the landlord. I add that while I am satisfied that the respondent has acted as an agent of the landlord, their involvement has been limited to just the one transaction: serving the termination notice on behalf of the landlord.
Apart from service by someone entitled there is no other challenge the notice.
The claim that the respondent was not entitled to serve the notice on behalf of the landlord is dismissed. Name suppression
Both parties seek name suppression.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The respondent has been wholly successful and is granted name suppression. There are no grounds to suppress the tenant’s name.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by telephone.

The tenancy commenced on 06 April 2020 and was periodic.

On 28 February 2022, lawyers acting on behalf of the landlord/ owner in the sale and purchase agreement emailed the landlord, advising that upon the contract for sale and purchase becoming unconditional, they would need to serve a 90-day notice terminating the tenancy on the basis that the new owners sought vacant possession. The email was copied to the respondent who was at the material time engaged by the owner / landlord to sell the property. The lawyers email concluded by suggesting to the landlord that the respondent could “deliver” the notice. The respondent states that they then received instructions from the landlord to serve the notice on their behalf.

On Wednesday 02 March 2023, at 4.49pm, the respondent sent an email notice to the tenant on behalf of the landlord terminating the tenancy on 06 June 2022. The second sentence of the email states, “I have been asked to communicate with you regarding your tenancy”. The notice goes on to set on the grounds on which the notice is issued and the end date of the tenancy. The email notice ends with both the name of respondent and the landlord.

The tenant’s claim against the respondent is that they were not the “property manager”, and were not entitled the issue the notice on behalf of the landlord.

Section 51(2)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (The “Act”) states that a landlord may terminate a tenancy by giving at least 90 days’ notice if: (b) the owner is required, under an unconditional agreement for sale the premises, to give the purchaser vacant possession.

Section 77 (1) of the Act provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants.

Section 2(1) of the Act defines a landlord in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, means the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement; and, where appropriate, includes .. (e) an agent of the landlord.

Agent is defined in section 2(1) of the Act as: in relation to any person who is a landlord or a tenant, means an agent of that person in that person’s capacity as landlord or tenant; and includes an employee of that person in that person’s capacity as landlord or tenant.

There are two relevant sources of agency law, the common law rules of agency, and the definition of landlord and tenant in section 2(1) of the Act.

In Mumby v Gary Brown Realty Ltd [2001] DCR 420, the Court stated that “the law is no different for agents acting under the Residential Tenancies Act than agent acting in any other capacity (at paragraph [31]). The primary common law rule is that an agent who merely acts as an intermediary for a principal, in this case the owner / landlord is not a party to the contract between the principal and the other party, in this case the tenant. Whether an agent is acting as an intermediary depends on the intention of the parties, which is determined objectively from the facts.

There is no dispute that the respondent did not have any involvement in the tenancy. Neither party considers the respondent to have acted as a property manager. The respondent is a real estate agent engaged by the landlord to sell the property. The owner / landlord has engaged the respondent to assist serve the notice. Pursuant to section 52(1) of the Act, any termination notice must be served by the landlord. In this case, the respondent meets the definition of agent and may serve the notice on behalf of the landlord. I add that while I am satisfied that the respondent has acted as an agent of the landlord, their involvement has been limited to just the one transaction: serving the termination notice on behalf of the landlord.

Apart from service by someone entitled there is no other challenge the notice.

The claim that the respondent was not entitled to serve the notice on behalf of the landlord is dismissed. Name suppression

Both parties seek name suppression.

Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.

The respondent has been wholly successful and is granted name suppression. There are no grounds to suppress the tenant’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4523830 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4523830 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions