What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4752521 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] is granted possession of the premises at [Tenancy address

How much money was awarded in case 4752521?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4752521?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4752521?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10078478-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4752521 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] is granted possession of the premises at [Tenancy address

How much money was awarded in case 4752521?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4752521?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4752521?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10078478-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4752521 — Tenancy dispute

Order

[The landlord/s] is granted possession of the premises at [Tenancy address suppressed] at 11.59 pm on Sunday 17 March 2024.

Reasons

Both parties attended the two hearings. I have referred to the applicant as the owner. The owner was represented by its general secretary who was mandated by the board to appear on its behalf. Ms Martin represented herself.
The owner has applied for possession of a rental house situated on a farm. Ms Martin is living in this house. There is a marae situated next to the farmland and the rental house. The marae has different ownership from the farm. The first hearing was adjourned so the owner could provide updated certificates of title. The issues I have to decide are: • Is the “rental house” part of the farm title, or part of the separate marae title? • Does Ms Martin have a right to live in the house? • Can Ms Martin’s potential claim in another jurisdiction be considered? • Should the owner get possession?
Section 65 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) is the law which gives the Tenancy Tribunal the jurisdiction to grant possession of a tenancy premises, even if there is no tenancy agreement. This section was considered by the High Court in Sergeant v Nigro and Tapsell [2019] NZHC 328. The Court held that there are three conditions which have to be met before an order can be made: the premises are residential premises, the applicant is entitled to possession of those premises, and another person is in possession as a squatter, trespasser, or otherwise than pursuant to any right of occupation granted by a person having the lawful authority to do so. Is the “rental house” part of the farm title, or part of the separate marae title?
The house in question is residential premises. It is a stand alone house. It has been used as a home for many years. Ms Martin currently lives there.
Ms Martin does not agree the house she is living in is owned by the applicant. She said her family has lived in the house for many years. Ms Martin said she was brought up there and the house has been gifted down to her. She said the rental house, the marae and the shed all used to be together as one piece of land. She said the house should never have been gifted out of the family.
The representative for the owner provided me with an up to date certificate of title for the farm land. I have also considered the sperate title for the marae, the aerial photo and the photos showing the rental house, the access road and the marae. It seems most likely to me the tenancy premises are part of the farm land. The applicant is named as the owner on the certificate of title.
I find the applicant has proved ownership of the rental house.

Does Ms Martin have a right to live in the house?

There is no tenancy agreement. Ms Martin would have liked a tenancy agreement but the representative for the owner said no. No rent has been paid. Ms Martin said she has spent thousands of dollars on repairs and improvements to the house instead.
Ms Martin’s mother and brother gave evidence as witnesses. They had both rented the house previously, with tenancy agreements and rent and bonds. Both spoke about their elders and Ms Martin’s right to live in the house. Their elders are buried in the urupa next door.
Despite the family connection to the house, I find the tenant has not been given the right to live there. Her request for a tenancy agreement was turned down. She was served two trespass notices last year by the owner asking her to leave the house. Using the language of section 65 RTA, she is in possession as a squatter or trespasser. Can Ms Martin’s potential claim in another jurisdiction be considered?
Ms Martin has been speaking with her lawyer and believes she and her family have a claim in the Māori Land Court.
The District and High Courts in Tapsell have made it clear that the Tribunal cannot evaluate the merits of any claim in another court in determining whether the applicant has a right to possession. The Tribunal simply has no jurisdiction to allow any consideration of other (undetermined) claims. In Tapsell the High Court stated that the Adjudicator was not in a position to evaluate other potential claims before the High Court. I find this means I cannot evaluate a potential claim in the Māori Land Court either.

Should the owner get possession?

I find the house Ms Martin is living in is residential premises. I find the applicant is the owner. I find Ms Martin is occupying the house without any legal right. I find the applicant is entitled to possession.
I have allowed a small amount of time so Ms Martin can pack up and move her belongings. Suppression
The owner has made an application for suppression. This is allowed because the owner is the most successful party. The tenant does not get suppression because a possession order has been made, which means there is public interest in her name. See section 95A RTA.

Reasons

Both parties attended the two hearings. I have referred to the applicant as the owner. The owner was represented by its general secretary who was mandated by the board to appear on its behalf. Ms Martin represented herself.

The owner has applied for possession of a rental house situated on a farm. Ms Martin is living in this house. There is a marae situated next to the farmland and the rental house. The marae has different ownership from the farm. The first hearing was adjourned so the owner could provide updated certificates of title. The issues I have to decide are: • Is the “rental house” part of the farm title, or part of the separate marae title? • Does Ms Martin have a right to live in the house? • Can Ms Martin’s potential claim in another jurisdiction be considered? • Should the owner get possession?

Section 65 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) is the law which gives the Tenancy Tribunal the jurisdiction to grant possession of a tenancy premises, even if there is no tenancy agreement. This section was considered by the High Court in Sergeant v Nigro and Tapsell [2019] NZHC 328. The Court held that there are three conditions which have to be met before an order can be made: the premises are residential premises, the applicant is entitled to possession of those premises, and another person is in possession as a squatter, trespasser, or otherwise than pursuant to any right of occupation granted by a person having the lawful authority to do so. Is the “rental house” part of the farm title, or part of the separate marae title?

The house in question is residential premises. It is a stand alone house. It has been used as a home for many years. Ms Martin currently lives there.

Ms Martin does not agree the house she is living in is owned by the applicant. She said her family has lived in the house for many years. Ms Martin said she was brought up there and the house has been gifted down to her. She said the rental house, the marae and the shed all used to be together as one piece of land. She said the house should never have been gifted out of the family.

The representative for the owner provided me with an up to date certificate of title for the farm land. I have also considered the sperate title for the marae, the aerial photo and the photos showing the rental house, the access road and the marae. It seems most likely to me the tenancy premises are part of the farm land. The applicant is named as the owner on the certificate of title.

I find the applicant has proved ownership of the rental house.

Does Ms Martin have a right to live in the house?

There is no tenancy agreement. Ms Martin would have liked a tenancy agreement but the representative for the owner said no. No rent has been paid. Ms Martin said she has spent thousands of dollars on repairs and improvements to the house instead.

Ms Martin’s mother and brother gave evidence as witnesses. They had both rented the house previously, with tenancy agreements and rent and bonds. Both spoke about their elders and Ms Martin’s right to live in the house. Their elders are buried in the urupa next door.

Despite the family connection to the house, I find the tenant has not been given the right to live there. Her request for a tenancy agreement was turned down. She was served two trespass notices last year by the owner asking her to leave the house. Using the language of section 65 RTA, she is in possession as a squatter or trespasser. Can Ms Martin’s potential claim in another jurisdiction be considered?

Ms Martin has been speaking with her lawyer and believes she and her family have a claim in the Māori Land Court.

The District and High Courts in Tapsell have made it clear that the Tribunal cannot evaluate the merits of any claim in another court in determining whether the applicant has a right to possession. The Tribunal simply has no jurisdiction to allow any consideration of other (undetermined) claims. In Tapsell the High Court stated that the Adjudicator was not in a position to evaluate other potential claims before the High Court. I find this means I cannot evaluate a potential claim in the Māori Land Court either.

Should the owner get possession?

I find the house Ms Martin is living in is residential premises. I find the applicant is the owner. I find Ms Martin is occupying the house without any legal right. I find the applicant is entitled to possession.

I have allowed a small amount of time so Ms Martin can pack up and move her belongings. Suppression

The owner has made an application for suppression. This is allowed because the owner is the most successful party. The tenant does not get suppression because a possession order has been made, which means there is public interest in her name. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4752521 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4752521 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does Ms Martin have a right to live in the house?

Should the owner get possession?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Does Ms Martin have a right to live in the house?

Should the owner get possession?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions