How much money was awarded in case 5078788?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5078788?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5078788?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11314587-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5078788?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5078788?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5078788?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11314587-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

34 Jury Road, Kaeo, RD 2, Kaeo 0479 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5078788 — Tenancy dispute

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5078788 about?

The tribunal order states: The applications are struck out. The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction.

Order

The applications are struck out. The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction.

Reasons

Background

In May 2023 Mr Wilmshurst, Ms Logan (together, “the landlords”) entered into an agreement with [The tenant/s] and his brother Geoffrey Miller (together, “the tenants”) for the lease of bare land at 34 Jury Road.
Under the terms of the lease, the tenants were permitted to bring relocatable housing onto the property.
Geoffrey brought on a relocatable home, and Peter brought on a bus and B- train truck trailers.
On 24 May 2024, the Far North District Council issued a Notice to Fix to Mr Wilmshurst. The notice states that unconsented building works have been carried out at 34 Jury Road, specifically “the placement of a cabins [sic] containing sanitary fittings, on a flood plain”. The notice states that Mr Wilmshurst must “remove the unauthorised building works”.
The letter accompanying the notice states “the NTF has been issued to you as you are a specified person as defined under section 163 of the Act [Building Act 2004]”.
The landlords asked the tenants to remove their structures from the land.
I understand that Geoffrey Miller removed his relocatable home. [The tenant/s] did not remove his caravan and truck / trailer.
Mr Wilmshurst issued a trespass notice to [The tenant/s] on 9 October 2024.
The landlords filed a Tenancy Tribunal application on 20 November 2024.
On 4 December 2024, the landlords issued a notice of intention to cancel the lease. The notice refers to section 244 of the Property Law Act 2007, cancellation for breach of a covenant or condition of the lease. I understand that the landlords are relying on clause 3.7 of the lease agreement which states that: The Lessee will comply with all relevant Acts, regulations, bylaws or lawful requirements of all public bodies and authorities concerning the business of the Lessee on the property
Mr Miller filed a cross-application with the Tenancy Tribunal on 31 December 2024.
Mr Miller disputes the termination of the lease on the grounds that: a. The Notice to Fix was improperly issued to the landlords rather to himself as the owner of “the building” and therefore the landlords are not obliged to comply with the Notice. b. He is not in breach of clause 3.7 because that clause only pertains to compliance in respect of the “business of the Lessee”. He is not operating a business on the property.
The Tenancy Tribunal hearing took place in Kaikohe on 16 January 2025. Mr Miller and Ms Logan appeared in person at Kaikohe. Mr Wilmshurst was unable to attend due to other commitments. Mr Gammon (Halliwells Lawyers) represented the landlords. Mr Gammon attended by phone with the consent of the Tribunal. Jurisdiction
The circumstances of the tenancy raise a jurisdictional issue.
The Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine disputes between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the Residential Tenancies Act (“RTA”) applies. 1
The RTA applies to all residential tenancies, except for the types of arrangements that are specifically excluded in the RTA. 2
The excluded types of tenancy are listed in section 5 of the RTA. One type of excluded tenancy is: Where the premises comprise bare land (with or without facilities) on which the tenant has the right under the agreement to place or erect a mobile home, caravan, or other means of shelter 3
Both parties agreed that this precisely describes the arrangement that they entered into.
Excluded tenancies can be brought back under the RTA if the parties agree in writing that the RTA will apply. 4
I was provided with a copy of an email from Mr Wilmshurst to Mr Miller dated 22 November 2024. Mr Wilmshurst states: Below is a page out of the Agreement that you and Geoffrey brought to Lorna and I, if you dispute any of this then there’s no Agreement which I very much doubt is a track you would want to go down. It states: Permitted use – residential occupation. (this means it is not a CIVIL MATTER but something that will be sorted by the TENANCY TRIBUNAL and not cost me in lawyers!!) As you will see attached is an email from a Civil Lawyer clearly stating that this is a [tenancy] issue
The landlords now take the view that the Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction. Mr Gammon said that Mr Wilmshurst had not taken comprehensive legal advice when he sent this message in November 2024.
The question is whether Mr Wilmshurt’s email indicates that there was an agreement between the parties that the tenancy was subject to the RTA, which Mr Wilmshurst is now attempting to resile from, or whether it only shows a mistaken understanding of jurisdiction that was adopted hastily in the desire for access to a relatively quick and low-cost mechanism to resolve the dispute.
I am satisfied that it is the latter and not the former. The parties had the opportunity to specify in their written agreement that the RTA applied. They did 1 Section 77(1) RTA 2 Section 4 RTA 3 Section 5(1)(t) RTA 4 Section 8 RTA not. There is no evidence of any reference to the RTA or the Tenancy Tribunal until this dispute arose in 2024.
My finding is that: a. This is an excluded tenancy. b. It is not proven that the landlords and tenants agreed that the RTA would apply to the tenancy. c. The RTA does not apply to this tenancy. d. The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the dispute. e. The applications must be struck out.

Reasons

Background

In May 2023 Mr Wilmshurst, Ms Logan (together, “the landlords”) entered into an agreement with [The tenant/s] and his brother Geoffrey Miller (together, “the tenants”) for the lease of bare land at 34 Jury Road.

Under the terms of the lease, the tenants were permitted to bring relocatable housing onto the property.

Geoffrey brought on a relocatable home, and Peter brought on a bus and B- train truck trailers.

On 24 May 2024, the Far North District Council issued a Notice to Fix to Mr Wilmshurst. The notice states that unconsented building works have been carried out at 34 Jury Road, specifically “the placement of a cabins [sic] containing sanitary fittings, on a flood plain”. The notice states that Mr Wilmshurst must “remove the unauthorised building works”.

The letter accompanying the notice states “the NTF has been issued to you as you are a specified person as defined under section 163 of the Act [Building Act 2004]”.

The landlords asked the tenants to remove their structures from the land.

I understand that Geoffrey Miller removed his relocatable home. [The tenant/s] did not remove his caravan and truck / trailer.

Mr Wilmshurst issued a trespass notice to [The tenant/s] on 9 October 2024.

The landlords filed a Tenancy Tribunal application on 20 November 2024.

On 4 December 2024, the landlords issued a notice of intention to cancel the lease. The notice refers to section 244 of the Property Law Act 2007, cancellation for breach of a covenant or condition of the lease. I understand that the landlords are relying on clause 3.7 of the lease agreement which states that: The Lessee will comply with all relevant Acts, regulations, bylaws or lawful requirements of all public bodies and authorities concerning the business of the Lessee on the property

Mr Miller filed a cross-application with the Tenancy Tribunal on 31 December 2024.

Mr Miller disputes the termination of the lease on the grounds that: a. The Notice to Fix was improperly issued to the landlords rather to himself as the owner of “the building” and therefore the landlords are not obliged to comply with the Notice. b. He is not in breach of clause 3.7 because that clause only pertains to compliance in respect of the “business of the Lessee”. He is not operating a business on the property.

The Tenancy Tribunal hearing took place in Kaikohe on 16 January 2025. Mr Miller and Ms Logan appeared in person at Kaikohe. Mr Wilmshurst was unable to attend due to other commitments. Mr Gammon (Halliwells Lawyers) represented the landlords. Mr Gammon attended by phone with the consent of the Tribunal. Jurisdiction

The circumstances of the tenancy raise a jurisdictional issue.

The Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine disputes between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the Residential Tenancies Act (“RTA”) applies. 1

The RTA applies to all residential tenancies, except for the types of arrangements that are specifically excluded in the RTA. 2

The excluded types of tenancy are listed in section 5 of the RTA. One type of excluded tenancy is: Where the premises comprise bare land (with or without facilities) on which the tenant has the right under the agreement to place or erect a mobile home, caravan, or other means of shelter 3

Both parties agreed that this precisely describes the arrangement that they entered into.

Excluded tenancies can be brought back under the RTA if the parties agree in writing that the RTA will apply. 4

I was provided with a copy of an email from Mr Wilmshurst to Mr Miller dated 22 November 2024. Mr Wilmshurst states: Below is a page out of the Agreement that you and Geoffrey brought to Lorna and I, if you dispute any of this then there’s no Agreement which I very much doubt is a track you would want to go down. It states: Permitted use – residential occupation. (this means it is not a CIVIL MATTER but something that will be sorted by the TENANCY TRIBUNAL and not cost me in lawyers!!) As you will see attached is an email from a Civil Lawyer clearly stating that this is a [tenancy] issue

The landlords now take the view that the Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction. Mr Gammon said that Mr Wilmshurst had not taken comprehensive legal advice when he sent this message in November 2024.

The question is whether Mr Wilmshurt’s email indicates that there was an agreement between the parties that the tenancy was subject to the RTA, which Mr Wilmshurst is now attempting to resile from, or whether it only shows a mistaken understanding of jurisdiction that was adopted hastily in the desire for access to a relatively quick and low-cost mechanism to resolve the dispute.

I am satisfied that it is the latter and not the former. The parties had the opportunity to specify in their written agreement that the RTA applied. They did 1 Section 77(1) RTA 2 Section 4 RTA 3 Section 5(1)(t) RTA 4 Section 8 RTA not. There is no evidence of any reference to the RTA or the Tenancy Tribunal until this dispute arose in 2024.

My finding is that: a. This is an excluded tenancy. b. It is not proven that the landlords and tenants agreed that the RTA would apply to the tenancy. c. The RTA does not apply to this tenancy. d. The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the dispute. e. The applications must be struck out.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5078788 — Tenancy dispute at 34 Jury Road, Kaeo, RD 2, Kaeo 0479

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5078788 — Tenancy dispute at 34 Jury Road, Kaeo, RD 2, Kaeo 0479

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