What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4970353 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4970353?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4970353?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4970353?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10895241-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4970353 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 4970353?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4970353?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4970353?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10895241-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4970353 — Tenancy dispute

Order

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

Reasons

Both parties attended this remote teleconference hearing on 1 October 2024.
The owner seeks possession of the premises.
The background is relatively straight forward. The premises were owned by Glen Heslip.
The premises were purchased by the owner at a mortgagee sale. The settlement of that purchase took place on 8 August 2024.
Prior to settlement of the purchase occurring, the owner met with Glen Heslip and the occupant. The occupant indicated that he had been living at the premises as a tenant and wished to remain there. The owner said that he would consider this and negotiations took place with a view to the owner and the occupant entering into a tenancy agreement. An agreement has not been reached.
The owner said that in discussions with Glen Heslip, that he was told that the occupant had been living at the premises for a number of years. No rent or bond was paid during that time.
The occupant said that he had lived at the premises for a little over a year. He said that his right to reside at the premises was based on a service tenancy. He said that a written tenancy agreement had been entered into. No copy of that service tenancy agreement has ever been provided to the owner, despite requests for it, and no copy has been provided to the Tribunal by the occupant.
No evidence as to the existence of the tenancy agreement was proffered from Glen Heslip.
The owner says that occupant is a squatter.
Section 65 RTA provides as follows: 65 Eviction of squatters (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 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.
In Sergeant v Nigro and Tapsell (2019) NZHC 328 the High Court held that there are three conditions which must be met before an order can be made under s.65 RTA. • The premises must be residential premises. • The applicant for possession is entitled to possession of those premises. • Another person or persons are in possession as squatters, trespassers or otherwise than pursuant to any right of occupation granted by a person having lawful authority to do so.
It seems clear that the premises are residential premises as defined in s.2 RTA. No evidence has been provided to suggest the contrary.
Is the owner entitled to possession of the premises?
The record of title for the premises provided to the Tribunal by the owner, shows the owner as the registered owner of the premises. There are no provisions in the RTA which would allow the Tribunal to conduct an enquiry as to the rights of the occupant to the premises as against the owner, due the sanctity of the doctrine of indefeasibility of title.
I find that the owner is entitled to possession of the premises as the registered owner.
Is the occupant in possession pursuant to any right of occupation granted by a person having lawful authority to do so?
The occupant is in possession and has occupied the premises for a little over a year. At the time when the occupant moved into the premises, the person with the lawful authority to grant a right of occupation was Glen Heslip.
Has Glen Heslip granted a right of occupation to the occupant? The occupant relies on what he says was a written service tenancy agreement. Had such an agreement existed, it would have been relatively simple for the occupant to provide a copy of the agreement in evidence. The occupant did not do so, nor was evidence provided from Glen Heslip to suggest that such an agreement existed.
I have no difficulty in finding that the occupant is not in possession of the premises as a result of a right of occupation granted by someone with lawful authority to grant that right.
The occupant has referred the Tribunal to Court of Appeal proceedings under CA392/2024 which he said related to the premises. Little other detail has been provided. The tenant referred variously to their being relationship property proceedings, claims against the mortgagee and bankruptcy proceedings against Glen Heslip. The occupant invited the Tribunal to defer making any order until such time as those proceedings were dealt with. 21 In a recent High Court decision Dunn v Dunn [2024] NZHC 2612, the Court confirmed its support for the application of Sergeant v Nigro ( supra) meaning that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider arguments such as for example rights under an alleged life interest or Wills Act, only the High Court can do that. If the occupant considers that they have a right to possession, then the correct approach is not for the Tribunal to decline a possession order, but for the occupant to apply to the appropriate forum (such as the High Court in Dunn), and seek an injunction in that forum.
The owner is granted an order for possession immediately. The requirements of s.64(1) RTA are met.
Both parties applied for name suppression. The owner has been wholly successful and suppression of the owners’ name and details is ordered. The occupant has not been wholly or substantially successful and the application for suppression by the occupant is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended this remote teleconference hearing on 1 October 2024.

The owner seeks possession of the premises.

The background is relatively straight forward. The premises were owned by Glen Heslip.

The premises were purchased by the owner at a mortgagee sale. The settlement of that purchase took place on 8 August 2024.

Prior to settlement of the purchase occurring, the owner met with Glen Heslip and the occupant. The occupant indicated that he had been living at the premises as a tenant and wished to remain there. The owner said that he would consider this and negotiations took place with a view to the owner and the occupant entering into a tenancy agreement. An agreement has not been reached.

The owner said that in discussions with Glen Heslip, that he was told that the occupant had been living at the premises for a number of years. No rent or bond was paid during that time.

The occupant said that he had lived at the premises for a little over a year. He said that his right to reside at the premises was based on a service tenancy. He said that a written tenancy agreement had been entered into. No copy of that service tenancy agreement has ever been provided to the owner, despite requests for it, and no copy has been provided to the Tribunal by the occupant.

No evidence as to the existence of the tenancy agreement was proffered from Glen Heslip.

The owner says that occupant is a squatter.

Section 65 RTA provides as follows: 65 Eviction of squatters (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 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.

In Sergeant v Nigro and Tapsell (2019) NZHC 328 the High Court held that there are three conditions which must be met before an order can be made under s.65 RTA. • The premises must be residential premises. • The applicant for possession is entitled to possession of those premises. • Another person or persons are in possession as squatters, trespassers or otherwise than pursuant to any right of occupation granted by a person having lawful authority to do so.

It seems clear that the premises are residential premises as defined in s.2 RTA. No evidence has been provided to suggest the contrary.

Is the owner entitled to possession of the premises?

The record of title for the premises provided to the Tribunal by the owner, shows the owner as the registered owner of the premises. There are no provisions in the RTA which would allow the Tribunal to conduct an enquiry as to the rights of the occupant to the premises as against the owner, due the sanctity of the doctrine of indefeasibility of title.

I find that the owner is entitled to possession of the premises as the registered owner.

Is the occupant in possession pursuant to any right of occupation granted by a person having lawful authority to do so?

The occupant is in possession and has occupied the premises for a little over a year. At the time when the occupant moved into the premises, the person with the lawful authority to grant a right of occupation was Glen Heslip.

Has Glen Heslip granted a right of occupation to the occupant? The occupant relies on what he says was a written service tenancy agreement. Had such an agreement existed, it would have been relatively simple for the occupant to provide a copy of the agreement in evidence. The occupant did not do so, nor was evidence provided from Glen Heslip to suggest that such an agreement existed.

I have no difficulty in finding that the occupant is not in possession of the premises as a result of a right of occupation granted by someone with lawful authority to grant that right.

The occupant has referred the Tribunal to Court of Appeal proceedings under CA392/2024 which he said related to the premises. Little other detail has been provided. The tenant referred variously to their being relationship property proceedings, claims against the mortgagee and bankruptcy proceedings against Glen Heslip. The occupant invited the Tribunal to defer making any order until such time as those proceedings were dealt with. 21 In a recent High Court decision Dunn v Dunn [2024] NZHC 2612, the Court confirmed its support for the application of Sergeant v Nigro ( supra) meaning that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider arguments such as for example rights under an alleged life interest or Wills Act, only the High Court can do that. If the occupant considers that they have a right to possession, then the correct approach is not for the Tribunal to decline a possession order, but for the occupant to apply to the appropriate forum (such as the High Court in Dunn), and seek an injunction in that forum.

The owner is granted an order for possession immediately. The requirements of s.64(1) RTA are met.

Both parties applied for name suppression. The owner has been wholly successful and suppression of the owners’ name and details is ordered. The occupant has not been wholly or substantially successful and the application for suppression by the occupant is dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4970353 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4970353 — 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