What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5071068 about?

The tribunal order states: The applicant’s and respondent’s names and identifying details and the tenancy

How much money was awarded in case 5071068?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5071068?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5071068?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11195948-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5071068 about?

The tribunal order states: The applicant’s and respondent’s names and identifying details and the tenancy

How much money was awarded in case 5071068?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5071068?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5071068?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11195948-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5071068 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The applicant’s and respondent’s names and identifying details and the tenancy address are suppressed from the published order.
[The landlord/s] is granted possession of the premises at [Tenancy address suppressed] at 12 noon on Monday 16 December 2024.

Reasons

The applicant’s legal representative and the respondent attended the hearing on 2 December 2024.
The applicant is the registered owner of the property at this address and has applied for possession of the residential premises.
A copy of the record of title proves that the property was transferred into the name of the applicant on 19 September 2024.
The respondent was the previous registered owner of the property.
The applicant purchased the property, by agreement dated 16 July 2024, from the Registrar of the High Court of New Zealand at Tauranga as chargeholder and in exercise of the power of sale contained in the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002.
It was an explicit term of the purchase that the applicant purchased the property subject to any existing tenancies or occupations including “holding over by the registered owners”. The vendor was not required to give vacant possession.
The respondent said in the hearing that he is still living at the property and has a right to continue to do so because, when he was the owner of the property, he rented the premises to himself, as the tenant.
He said in the hearing that this means that the current owner, the applicant, must give him written notice to terminate his tenancy and that she has not done this. In his view, the Tribunal cannot grant a possession order because his tenancy (from himself) has not ended.

Does the Tenancy Tribunal have jurisdiction to make a possession order?

The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) applies to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically provided; section 4 RTA.
Where a mortgagee or other person (such as a purchaser) becomes entitled to possession of premises, that person has the same rights as a landlord to give notice to terminate the tenancy or to apply to the Tribunal to terminate the tenancy; s58 RTA.
The Tenancy Tribunal has the authority to make a possession order after termination of a tenancy; s64 RTA.
The Tribunal also has the power to make a possession order relating to any residential premises, even if there is no tenancy, if satisfied that:- a. The person applying is entitled to possession, and b. The person in occupation has no lawful right of occupation; See section 65 RTA.

Is there a tenancy?

The Tribunal was provided with a document at the hearing dated the 16 th of September 2024 and entitled “Residential Tenancy Agreement” between “Frazer Smith (the “Landlord”)” and “Fraser Alexander Smith (the “Tenant”)”.
The document (“tenancy agreement”) records that the landlord agrees to rent to the tenant, the townhouse at 11a Fort St, Cambridge, for use as residential premises.
The respondent confirmed in the hearing that, although the name of the landlord is spelled differently to the name of the tenant, he is both the landlord and the tenant. He intended that he rent the property to himself.
The tenancy agreement is not signed. The respondent said this is because the tenancy was an electronic document.
A tenancy agreement is a contract. A contract is a legally binding agreement between two parties.
The question is, can a person enter into a contract with themselves?
It is possible for two parties to a contract to be the same physical person. An authorised person may sign a contract on behalf of a company and also sign as the other party, in their personal capacity as an individual.
This is possible because a company has a separate legal identity from an individual. For example, ABC Limited is a different legal person from Andi B. Cobb, who is the company’s director.
However, the two parties to a contract cannot be the same legal person, or entity. 1
It makes no sense to make an offer to yourself, and accept that offer, or to pay yourself rent or other valuable exchange, or to enforce an obligation against yourself.
For this reason, I do not agree that the respondent has shown that he is a tenant with a right of occupation of the premises.
My decision is that there is no legally binding tenancy.
This means that section 58 RTA does not apply, and the applicant does not have to give the respondent written notice to terminate a tenancy.

Does the respondent have any lawful right of occupation?

The applicant has a right of possession of these residential premises because she is the registered owner of the property.
On 21 October 2024, a date after she took ownership, the applicant served the respondent with a letter from her lawyer (dated 16 October 2024) advising the respondent that he had no right to reside at the property and that he was required to leave the property immediately.
[The respondent/s] acknowledged in the hearing that he did receive this letter.
The respondent was invited to communicate with the applicant’s lawyer about a reasonable timeframe for leaving the property.
The respondent has not done so and has not vacated the premises. 1 It has been recently affirmed in Rhine Shipping DMCC v Vitol SA; The Dijilah [2024] 1 All ER (Comm) 245 that a legal person cannot contract with itself and therefore internal transactions between different parts of the same company were not legally recognised as binding contracts; applying Bremer Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Toepfer [1980] 2 Lloyd's Rep 43.
The fact that the applicant purchased the property subject to any existing occupations does not prevent her from notifying the respondent that he no longer has a right of occupation and warning him to leave the property.
I am satisfied that:- a. The applicant is entitled to possession of the residential premises at this address; and b. The respondent is currently in possession of the premises; and c. There is no evidence of any right of occupation granted to the respondent by any person with lawful authority to do so.
The requirements of section 65(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 are satisfied.
I must therefore make a possession order in favour of the applicant.
I grant possession as at 12 noon on Monday 16 December 2024.
The respondent requested a longer period of time within which to vacate. I have not granted this because nearly three months have elapsed since the applicant purchased the property. She is entitled to possession without further delay.
The applicant has been successful with the application so is entitled to suppression of name, as sought.
I also suppress the respondent’s name. I consider that the respondent’s privacy outweighs any public interest in his identity because any such interest is not related to tenancy matters. The subject matter is available to the public by publication of the decision.

Reasons

The applicant’s legal representative and the respondent attended the hearing on 2 December 2024.

The applicant is the registered owner of the property at this address and has applied for possession of the residential premises.

A copy of the record of title proves that the property was transferred into the name of the applicant on 19 September 2024.

The respondent was the previous registered owner of the property.

The applicant purchased the property, by agreement dated 16 July 2024, from the Registrar of the High Court of New Zealand at Tauranga as chargeholder and in exercise of the power of sale contained in the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002.

It was an explicit term of the purchase that the applicant purchased the property subject to any existing tenancies or occupations including “holding over by the registered owners”. The vendor was not required to give vacant possession.

The respondent said in the hearing that he is still living at the property and has a right to continue to do so because, when he was the owner of the property, he rented the premises to himself, as the tenant.

He said in the hearing that this means that the current owner, the applicant, must give him written notice to terminate his tenancy and that she has not done this. In his view, the Tribunal cannot grant a possession order because his tenancy (from himself) has not ended.

Does the Tenancy Tribunal have jurisdiction to make a possession order?

The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) applies to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically provided; section 4 RTA.

Where a mortgagee or other person (such as a purchaser) becomes entitled to possession of premises, that person has the same rights as a landlord to give notice to terminate the tenancy or to apply to the Tribunal to terminate the tenancy; s58 RTA.

The Tenancy Tribunal has the authority to make a possession order after termination of a tenancy; s64 RTA.

The Tribunal also has the power to make a possession order relating to any residential premises, even if there is no tenancy, if satisfied that:- a. The person applying is entitled to possession, and b. The person in occupation has no lawful right of occupation; See section 65 RTA.

Is there a tenancy?

The Tribunal was provided with a document at the hearing dated the 16 th of September 2024 and entitled “Residential Tenancy Agreement” between “Frazer Smith (the “Landlord”)” and “Fraser Alexander Smith (the “Tenant”)”.

The document (“tenancy agreement”) records that the landlord agrees to rent to the tenant, the townhouse at 11a Fort St, Cambridge, for use as residential premises.

The respondent confirmed in the hearing that, although the name of the landlord is spelled differently to the name of the tenant, he is both the landlord and the tenant. He intended that he rent the property to himself.

The tenancy agreement is not signed. The respondent said this is because the tenancy was an electronic document.

A tenancy agreement is a contract. A contract is a legally binding agreement between two parties.

The question is, can a person enter into a contract with themselves?

It is possible for two parties to a contract to be the same physical person. An authorised person may sign a contract on behalf of a company and also sign as the other party, in their personal capacity as an individual.

This is possible because a company has a separate legal identity from an individual. For example, ABC Limited is a different legal person from Andi B. Cobb, who is the company’s director.

However, the two parties to a contract cannot be the same legal person, or entity. 1

It makes no sense to make an offer to yourself, and accept that offer, or to pay yourself rent or other valuable exchange, or to enforce an obligation against yourself.

For this reason, I do not agree that the respondent has shown that he is a tenant with a right of occupation of the premises.

My decision is that there is no legally binding tenancy.

This means that section 58 RTA does not apply, and the applicant does not have to give the respondent written notice to terminate a tenancy.

Does the respondent have any lawful right of occupation?

The applicant has a right of possession of these residential premises because she is the registered owner of the property.

On 21 October 2024, a date after she took ownership, the applicant served the respondent with a letter from her lawyer (dated 16 October 2024) advising the respondent that he had no right to reside at the property and that he was required to leave the property immediately.

[The respondent/s] acknowledged in the hearing that he did receive this letter.

The respondent was invited to communicate with the applicant’s lawyer about a reasonable timeframe for leaving the property.

The respondent has not done so and has not vacated the premises. 1 It has been recently affirmed in Rhine Shipping DMCC v Vitol SA; The Dijilah [2024] 1 All ER (Comm) 245 that a legal person cannot contract with itself and therefore internal transactions between different parts of the same company were not legally recognised as binding contracts; applying Bremer Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Toepfer [1980] 2 Lloyd's Rep 43.

The fact that the applicant purchased the property subject to any existing occupations does not prevent her from notifying the respondent that he no longer has a right of occupation and warning him to leave the property.

I am satisfied that:- a. The applicant is entitled to possession of the residential premises at this address; and b. The respondent is currently in possession of the premises; and c. There is no evidence of any right of occupation granted to the respondent by any person with lawful authority to do so.

The requirements of section 65(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 are satisfied.

I must therefore make a possession order in favour of the applicant.

I grant possession as at 12 noon on Monday 16 December 2024.

The respondent requested a longer period of time within which to vacate. I have not granted this because nearly three months have elapsed since the applicant purchased the property. She is entitled to possession without further delay.

The applicant has been successful with the application so is entitled to suppression of name, as sought.

I also suppress the respondent’s name. I consider that the respondent’s privacy outweighs any public interest in his identity because any such interest is not related to tenancy matters. The subject matter is available to the public by publication of the decision.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5071068 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5071068 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the Tenancy Tribunal have jurisdiction to make a possession order?

Is there a tenancy?

Does the respondent have any lawful right of occupation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Does the Tenancy Tribunal have jurisdiction to make a possession order?

Is there a tenancy?

Does the respondent have any lawful right of occupation?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions