What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5019579 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5019579?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5019579?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5019579?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11103391-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5019579 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5019579?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5019579?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5019579?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11103391-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

suppressed] Tenancy Tribunal Case 5019579 — Rent arrears

Order

The application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
By way of declaration: the parties do not have a residential tenancy agreement.
Suppression orders are to apply to both parties.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was allocated upon the filing of [The applicant/s] claims, to ascertain jurisdiction. [The respondent's representative] represented the respondent.
[The applicant/s] is the owner of [Tenancy address suppressed]. She purchased the premise in 2022 which was already subject to a lease to the respondents who run the premise as a hotel unit under the name the [Hotel]. A dispute has now arisen between the parties which they both want resolved.
[The respondent's representative]’s submission is that Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine this dispute under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA). She refers specifically to the following provisions: a. Section 4 which states that the RTA applies to tenancies for residential purposes. She says the arrangement the parties have is a 30-year lease where the apartment is let out on a commercial basis as part of the hotel and is not a place of residence for them as tenants. b. Section 5(1)(a) which states the RTA does not apply where the premises are commercial premises. c. Section 5(1)(s)(i)(A) which states a further exclusion being when the tenancy agreement is entered into to enable the tenant to sublet the premises to provide accommodation for other people for commercial gain.
[The respondent's representative] is the director of [The respondent/s] which runs the [Hotel] – a hotel in Wellington. The lease they had with the previous owner was for 30 years, broken into 5-year terms, and commenced on 17 December 2013. She provided a copy of the Long Term Unit Title Lease Agreement. The use of the premise as stated in the Agreement is as follows:
[The applicant/s] says this is a residential tenancy for the following reasons: a. There is no registered lease hold title. b. She purchased the property with the lease in situ and did not sign anything to that end. c. The respondents are not paying GST. d. The premise is situated in a residential zone of the council, and she is paying residential rates. e. Rent arrears invalidates any contract. The law and discussion
The civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities, applies. I note that the onus of proof where there is a challenge to jurisdiction in any proceedings before the Tribunal is with the party that contends the RTA does not apply. This means the respondent has the burden to prove that the premises were let principally for purposes other than residential purposes. See sections 2(3) and 10 RTA.
Commercial premises are defined in section 2(1) as premises that are not residential premises. Section 2(1) defines residential premises as ‘premises used or intended to be used for occupation by any person as a residence’. Section 2(3) states that where any premises are used for both commercial and residential purposes, the premises shall be deemed to be residential premises unless it is proved that the premises were let principally for purposes other than residential purposes.
The RTA is considered to be consumer protection legislation and the Tribunal is to apply the RTA, where there is doubt about jurisdiction, to protect landlords and tenants. As such, the District Court has stated that in order to give effect to the Act’s true intent and meaning, the exemptions in section 5 should be interpreted strictly and not liberally. 1
I am satisfied that the respondent has established in evidence that the premise was let for commercial purposes, therefore purposes other than residential. This is for the following reasons: i. The Lease Agreement is a commercial lease document. ii. No evidence has been provided to negate the contention that the Lease Agreement was transferred to [The applicant/s] upon purchase of the unit. iii. The premises are let for the purposes of the respondent to run a hotel room from.
I consider that this arrangement falls within either one or both of the exclusions to the RTA stated in sections 5(1)(a) and 5(1)(s)(i)(A). In short, the parties do not have an arrangement whereby [The applicant/s] as landlord rents the unit to the respondent company to reside in. Their agreement is commercial for the purposes of the respondent to sublet the premise on short term lets.
Accordingly, I find the Tenancy Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to hear the application and [The applicant/s] will need to file her claims with the Disputes Tribunal.
The application is dismissed.
I direct that the party’s identifying details be redacted from the published order as it is not in the public interest for them to be known and the effect of publication would be disproportionate given the lack of clarity as to jurisdiction. Further, the parties’ dispute remains unresolved.

Order

The application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
By way of declaration: the parties do not have a residential tenancy agreement.
Suppression orders are to apply to both parties.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was allocated upon the filing of [The applicant/s] claims, to ascertain jurisdiction. [The respondent's representative] represented the respondent.
[The applicant/s] is the owner of [Tenancy address suppressed]. She purchased the premise in 2022 which was already subject to a lease to the respondents who run the premise as a hotel unit under the name the [Hotel]. A dispute has now arisen between the parties which they both want resolved.
[The respondent's representative]’s submission is that Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine this dispute under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the RTA). She refers specifically to the following provisions: a. Section 4 which states that the RTA applies to tenancies for residential purposes. She says the arrangement the parties have is a 30-year lease where the apartment is let out on a commercial basis as part of the hotel and is not a place of residence for them as tenants. b. Section 5(1)(a) which states the RTA does not apply where the premises are commercial premises. c. Section 5(1)(s)(i)(A) which states a further exclusion being when the tenancy agreement is entered into to enable the tenant to sublet the premises to provide accommodation for other people for commercial gain.
[The respondent's representative] is the director of [The respondent/s] which runs the [Hotel] – a hotel in Wellington. The lease they had with the previous owner was for 30 years, broken into 5-year terms, and commenced on 17 December 2013. She provided a copy of the Long Term Unit Title Lease Agreement. The use of the premise as stated in the Agreement is as follows:
[The applicant/s] says this is a residential tenancy for the following reasons: a. There is no registered lease hold title. b. She purchased the property with the lease in situ and did not sign anything to that end. c. The respondents are not paying GST. d. The premise is situated in a residential zone of the council, and she is paying residential rates. e. Rent arrears invalidates any contract. The law and discussion
The civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities, applies. I note that the onus of proof where there is a challenge to jurisdiction in any proceedings before the Tribunal is with the party that contends the RTA does not apply. This means the respondent has the burden to prove that the premises were let principally for purposes other than residential purposes. See sections 2(3) and 10 RTA.
Commercial premises are defined in section 2(1) as premises that are not residential premises. Section 2(1) defines residential premises as ‘premises used or intended to be used for occupation by any person as a residence’. Section 2(3) states that where any premises are used for both commercial and residential purposes, the premises shall be deemed to be residential premises unless it is proved that the premises were let principally for purposes other than residential purposes.
The RTA is considered to be consumer protection legislation and the Tribunal is to apply the RTA, where there is doubt about jurisdiction, to protect landlords and tenants. As such, the District Court has stated that in order to give effect to the Act’s true intent and meaning, the exemptions in section 5 should be interpreted strictly and not liberally. 1
I am satisfied that the respondent has established in evidence that the premise was let for commercial purposes, therefore purposes other than residential. This is for the following reasons: i. The Lease Agreement is a commercial lease document. ii. No evidence has been provided to negate the contention that the Lease Agreement was transferred to [The applicant/s] upon purchase of the unit. iii. The premises are let for the purposes of the respondent to run a hotel room from.
I consider that this arrangement falls within either one or both of the exclusions to the RTA stated in sections 5(1)(a) and 5(1)(s)(i)(A). In short, the parties do not have an arrangement whereby [The applicant/s] as landlord rents the unit to the respondent company to reside in. Their agreement is commercial for the purposes of the respondent to sublet the premise on short term lets.
Accordingly, I find the Tenancy Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to hear the application and [The applicant/s] will need to file her claims with the Disputes Tribunal.
The application is dismissed.
I direct that the party’s identifying details be redacted from the published order as it is not in the public interest for them to be known and the effect of publication would be disproportionate given the lack of clarity as to jurisdiction. Further, the parties’ dispute remains unresolved.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5019579 — Rent arrears at suppressed]

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5019579 — Rent arrears at suppressed]

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions