What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4939000 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is struck out for want of jurisdiction.

How much money was awarded in case 4939000?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4939000?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4939000?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11072506-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4939000 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is struck out for want of jurisdiction.

How much money was awarded in case 4939000?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4939000?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages. Related themes: Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4939000?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11072506-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4939000 — Exemplary damages

Order

The application is struck out for want of jurisdiction.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by way of teleconference.
The respondent part owns (with her ex-husband) and resides in the property at [address]. In or around February 2024, she answered an advertisement that had been placed on the local supermarket notice board by the applicant who was intending to move to the [district] and was looking for a place to rent. The parties met and agreed that the applicant could move into the spare room at the premises with shared use of the facilities. Rent was agreed at $180 per week. No written agreement was entered into.
The applicant moved into the premises fully on 5 May 2024. At the time the respondent’s 19-year-old son was also living at the premises (he moved out approximately two weeks after the applicant moved in).
The applicant claims that he moved in as a flatmate. The respondent claims he moved in as a boarder. However, within approximately one week after the applicant moved in, the parties began an intimate relationship. The applicant continued to pay the $180 per week to the respondent and the parties shared other costs (food etc). The relationship unfortunately broke down and the respondent left the property on 3 May 2024. She obtained a protection order against the applicant and, when the applicant would not move out of the premises, the applicant was trespassed from the property.
The applicant filed this application seeking compensation and exemplary damages for various breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) arising out of the ending of his occupancy of the premises and during his time living there.
The application was set down for hearing to determine whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine the claim. The issue arises because the Tribunal only has jurisdiction to hear disputes that come within the Act, that is, between landlords and tenants (and between a landlord and a guarantor of a tenant's obligations) provided the dispute is in relation to a residential tenancy.
The starting point in answering the question of whether the tenancy comes within the Act is section 4 which provides that the Act applies to all tenancies of residential premises unless specifically excluded. Section 5 sets outs occupancies which are excluded from the Act.
Thus, the first question to be answered is whether the relationship between the parties was one of landlord and tenant. If the answer to this question is yes then the next question is whether the occupancy falls within one of the exclusions in section 5 of the Act. The relevant one here is section 5(1)(n) which states that the Act shall not apply: “Where the premises, not being a boarding house, continue to be used, during the tenancy, principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the owner of the premises or by any member of the landlord’s or owner’s family.”

Is the relationship one of landlord and tenant?

In Musson v Dobrisek & Ors DC Lower Hutt CIV-2006-032-36, 5 May 2006, Judge Broadmore was required to considered whether the legal relationship between a head tenant and the other occupants were as the head tenant’s flatmates. He states (at para [22]: “By ‘flatmates’ I understand a co-operative arrangement whereby, in a functional sense, all occupants are on the same footing in that they have exclusive occupation of their own rooms and shared use and occupation of common areas such as kitchens.”
I am satisfied that the evidence establishes that the parties agreed, when the applicant moved into the premises, that the relationship between them be one of flatmates, not landlord and tenant. As mentioned, the applicant accepts that he did initially move in as the respondent’s flatmate and the arrangement was that each would (until the relationship became intimate) have exclusive occupation of their own rooms and shared use and occupation of common areas.
The relationship changed soon after the applicant moved in to one of a ‘family’ or an ‘intimate’ relationship but that only takes it further from it being legitimately described as one of landlord and tenant.
The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine disputes between flatmates or disputes between family members or those in an intimate relationship. The application is therefore struck out for lack of jurisdiction on that ground and there is no need for me to address the second question, that is, whether the occupancy falls within the section 5(1)(n) exclusion. Suppression
The applicant applied, in his application, for a suppression order.
Section 95A(1) of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).
The applicant has been unsuccessful in his claim. However, section 95A(4) of the Act provides that the Tribunal may order that a party’s name or identifying particulars not be published after having regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest.
I consider that this is an appropriate case to exercise my discretion in both the applicant’s and the respondent’s favour and order suppression of the name and identifying details of both parties. Given the nature of the claims, but in particular the nature of the relationship between them and the small community in which they live, I consider that the prejudice to them if their name and identifying details were published far outweigh any public interest in the publication.

Order

The application is struck out for want of jurisdiction.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by way of teleconference.
The respondent part owns (with her ex-husband) and resides in the property at [address]. In or around February 2024, she answered an advertisement that had been placed on the local supermarket notice board by the applicant who was intending to move to the [district] and was looking for a place to rent. The parties met and agreed that the applicant could move into the spare room at the premises with shared use of the facilities. Rent was agreed at $180 per week. No written agreement was entered into.
The applicant moved into the premises fully on 5 May 2024. At the time the respondent’s 19-year-old son was also living at the premises (he moved out approximately two weeks after the applicant moved in).
The applicant claims that he moved in as a flatmate. The respondent claims he moved in as a boarder. However, within approximately one week after the applicant moved in, the parties began an intimate relationship. The applicant continued to pay the $180 per week to the respondent and the parties shared other costs (food etc). The relationship unfortunately broke down and the respondent left the property on 3 May 2024. She obtained a protection order against the applicant and, when the applicant would not move out of the premises, the applicant was trespassed from the property.
The applicant filed this application seeking compensation and exemplary damages for various breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) arising out of the ending of his occupancy of the premises and during his time living there.
The application was set down for hearing to determine whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine the claim. The issue arises because the Tribunal only has jurisdiction to hear disputes that come within the Act, that is, between landlords and tenants (and between a landlord and a guarantor of a tenant's obligations) provided the dispute is in relation to a residential tenancy.
The starting point in answering the question of whether the tenancy comes within the Act is section 4 which provides that the Act applies to all tenancies of residential premises unless specifically excluded. Section 5 sets outs occupancies which are excluded from the Act.
Thus, the first question to be answered is whether the relationship between the parties was one of landlord and tenant. If the answer to this question is yes then the next question is whether the occupancy falls within one of the exclusions in section 5 of the Act. The relevant one here is section 5(1)(n) which states that the Act shall not apply: “Where the premises, not being a boarding house, continue to be used, during the tenancy, principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the owner of the premises or by any member of the landlord’s or owner’s family.”

Is the relationship one of landlord and tenant?

In Musson v Dobrisek & Ors DC Lower Hutt CIV-2006-032-36, 5 May 2006, Judge Broadmore was required to considered whether the legal relationship between a head tenant and the other occupants were as the head tenant’s flatmates. He states (at para [22]: “By ‘flatmates’ I understand a co-operative arrangement whereby, in a functional sense, all occupants are on the same footing in that they have exclusive occupation of their own rooms and shared use and occupation of common areas such as kitchens.”
I am satisfied that the evidence establishes that the parties agreed, when the applicant moved into the premises, that the relationship between them be one of flatmates, not landlord and tenant. As mentioned, the applicant accepts that he did initially move in as the respondent’s flatmate and the arrangement was that each would (until the relationship became intimate) have exclusive occupation of their own rooms and shared use and occupation of common areas.
The relationship changed soon after the applicant moved in to one of a ‘family’ or an ‘intimate’ relationship but that only takes it further from it being legitimately described as one of landlord and tenant.
The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine disputes between flatmates or disputes between family members or those in an intimate relationship. The application is therefore struck out for lack of jurisdiction on that ground and there is no need for me to address the second question, that is, whether the occupancy falls within the section 5(1)(n) exclusion. Suppression
The applicant applied, in his application, for a suppression order.
Section 95A(1) of the Act provides that the Tribunal must, on the application of a party who has been wholly or substantially successful in the proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published (unless the limited circumstances set out in the section apply).
The applicant has been unsuccessful in his claim. However, section 95A(4) of the Act provides that the Tribunal may order that a party’s name or identifying particulars not be published after having regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest.
I consider that this is an appropriate case to exercise my discretion in both the applicant’s and the respondent’s favour and order suppression of the name and identifying details of both parties. Given the nature of the claims, but in particular the nature of the relationship between them and the small community in which they live, I consider that the prejudice to them if their name and identifying details were published far outweigh any public interest in the publication.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4939000 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4939000 — Exemplary damages

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the relationship one of landlord and tenant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the relationship one of landlord and tenant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions