What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4782257 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4782257?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4782257?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4782257?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9967681-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4782257 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4782257?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4782257?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4782257?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9967681-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4782257 — Tenancy dispute

Order

[The applicant/s] is granted possession of the premises at [Tenancy address suppressed] immediately.

Reasons

The applicant attended the hearing through its counsel as representative. The respondent was served with Notice of the hearing but did not attend.
The landlord has applied for possession of the premises under s.65 RTA which provides as follows: “(1) Where, on the application of any person entitled to possession of any residential premises, the Tribunal is satisfied that any other person is in possession of the premises as a squatter or trespasser, or otherwise than pursuant to any right of occupation granted to that person by any person having lawful authority to grant that right to that other person, the Tribunal shall make a possession order granting possession of the premises to the applicant. (2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall limit or affect the provisions of the Trespass Act 1980, or any other remedy that may be available to the person lawfully entitled to possession of the premises. (3) To avoid doubt, the Tribunal has jurisdiction under this section even though the premises are not subject to a tenancy agreement.”
The property was owned by [The owner/s] who died on 21 March 2023. The evidence provided by the applicant shows that probate of her will was granted on 11 July 2023 appointing [Executor] as executor and administrator of the estate.
A copy of the certificate of title for the property [redacted] was provided in evidence showing that title was registered to [Executor] as executor by transmission on 7 September 2023.
The respondent is [The owner/s]’s son. It seems that he has been living in the property for many years with [The owner/s] and her late husband and latterly, until her death, with [The owner/s].
The respondent remains living in the property.
Under the provisions of [The owner/s] will, after payment of debts, her estate is to be divided equally among those of [The owner/s] four children who survive her. No specific interests in the property are provided for.
The applicant has sought to engage with the respondent to recover possession of the property so it can be sold, and it's proceeds distributed in terms of [The owner/s]’s will. The respondent has not vacated the property either in response to those requests or in response to a formal 90 day notice of termination issued by the applicant.
It is not clear from the evidence whether or on what basis the respondent asserts a continuing right to occupation of the property. The applicant says that there is no evidence of a formal tenancy agreement in respect of the premises or of the respondent having paid board or any form of rent. Jurisdiction
Uniquely, s.65 gives the Tribunal jurisdiction to make a possession order in the absence of any landlord/ tenant relationship between the parties.
On its face s.5(1)(n) might seem to apply so as to exclude application of the RTA and the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. However, s.5(1)(n) applies where there is a tenancy. That is not the case here. I also note that in Henderson v Douglas District Court, Tauranga 21 October 2003 TT418/03 cited by the applicant, in a largely analogous family situation, the District Court found s.65 to be applicable and that s.5(n) did not exclude the operation of the RTA.
Applying s.65, as registered proprietor, the applicant is entitled to possession of the property unless the respondent is occupying the property, “...pursuant to any right of occupation granted to that person by any person having lawful authority to grant that right to that other person.....”
As noted, there is no evidence of a tenancy agreement or other contractual basis for the respondent’s occupation of the property. No equitable right to occupation arises under [The owner/s] will. His occupation seems properly characterised as pursuant to a license from [The owner/s]. That licence was, of its nature, ended on [The owner/s]’s death.
There being no basis on with the respondent can assert a right of occupation of the property as against the applicant as registered proprietor, the Tribunal must make an order granting possession of the property to the applicant.
No order for costs is sought.

Order

[The applicant/s] is granted possession of the premises at [Tenancy address suppressed] immediately.

Reasons

The applicant attended the hearing through its counsel as representative. The respondent was served with Notice of the hearing but did not attend.
The landlord has applied for possession of the premises under s.65 RTA which provides as follows: “(1) Where, on the application of any person entitled to possession of any residential premises, the Tribunal is satisfied that any other person is in possession of the premises as a squatter or trespasser, or otherwise than pursuant to any right of occupation granted to that person by any person having lawful authority to grant that right to that other person, the Tribunal shall make a possession order granting possession of the premises to the applicant. (2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall limit or affect the provisions of the Trespass Act 1980, or any other remedy that may be available to the person lawfully entitled to possession of the premises. (3) To avoid doubt, the Tribunal has jurisdiction under this section even though the premises are not subject to a tenancy agreement.”
The property was owned by [The owner/s] who died on 21 March 2023. The evidence provided by the applicant shows that probate of her will was granted on 11 July 2023 appointing [Executor] as executor and administrator of the estate.
A copy of the certificate of title for the property [redacted] was provided in evidence showing that title was registered to [Executor] as executor by transmission on 7 September 2023.
The respondent is [The owner/s]’s son. It seems that he has been living in the property for many years with [The owner/s] and her late husband and latterly, until her death, with [The owner/s].
The respondent remains living in the property.
Under the provisions of [The owner/s] will, after payment of debts, her estate is to be divided equally among those of [The owner/s] four children who survive her. No specific interests in the property are provided for.
The applicant has sought to engage with the respondent to recover possession of the property so it can be sold, and it's proceeds distributed in terms of [The owner/s]’s will. The respondent has not vacated the property either in response to those requests or in response to a formal 90 day notice of termination issued by the applicant.
It is not clear from the evidence whether or on what basis the respondent asserts a continuing right to occupation of the property. The applicant says that there is no evidence of a formal tenancy agreement in respect of the premises or of the respondent having paid board or any form of rent. Jurisdiction
Uniquely, s.65 gives the Tribunal jurisdiction to make a possession order in the absence of any landlord/ tenant relationship between the parties.
On its face s.5(1)(n) might seem to apply so as to exclude application of the RTA and the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. However, s.5(1)(n) applies where there is a tenancy. That is not the case here. I also note that in Henderson v Douglas District Court, Tauranga 21 October 2003 TT418/03 cited by the applicant, in a largely analogous family situation, the District Court found s.65 to be applicable and that s.5(n) did not exclude the operation of the RTA.
Applying s.65, as registered proprietor, the applicant is entitled to possession of the property unless the respondent is occupying the property, “...pursuant to any right of occupation granted to that person by any person having lawful authority to grant that right to that other person.....”
As noted, there is no evidence of a tenancy agreement or other contractual basis for the respondent’s occupation of the property. No equitable right to occupation arises under [The owner/s] will. His occupation seems properly characterised as pursuant to a license from [The owner/s]. That licence was, of its nature, ended on [The owner/s]’s death.
There being no basis on with the respondent can assert a right of occupation of the property as against the applicant as registered proprietor, the Tribunal must make an order granting possession of the property to the applicant.
No order for costs is sought.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4782257 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4782257 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Frequently asked questions