What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5153454 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5153454?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5153454?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5153454?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11651163-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5153454 about?

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

How much money was awarded in case 5153454?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5153454?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5153454?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11651163-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5153454 — Tenancy dispute

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing by phone. The tenant did not attend the hearing. Tenants attendance

The tenant had sought an adjournment prior to the hearing however this was declined. It subsequently became apparent shortly before the hearing that the tenant may not have been served the application, but she was aware of the hearing date and time. The registry emailed the application to the tenant shortly before the hearing.

The tenant was phoned on the phone number provided but the tenant did not answer the phone calls. The hearing proceeded in her absence.

I have determined to strike out this application rather than adjourn to a further hearing. The tenant may apply for a rehearing if she wishes to be heard further on the matter, given she was only served by the email address she provided shortly before the hearing. Jurisdiction

The preliminary question at the hearing was whether or not the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim. Questions of jurisdiction are fundamental and must be decided before the Tribunal can go on to make any other findings in a case. Put simply, if there is no jurisdiction, then I cannot proceed to hear the case.

The Tribunal can only consider disputes in relation to residential tenancies which fall within the RTA.

There is a statutory presumption that the RTA will apply to all residential tenancies, unless specifically excluded. 1

The RTA does not apply where the premises are commercial premises. 2

Commercial premises are premises that are not residential. 3

Residential premises means any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence, whether or not the occupation or intended occupation for residential purposes is or would be unlawful. 4

Where leased premises are used by the tenant for both residential and commercial purposes, they are deemed to be residential unless it is proved that they were let principally for purposes other than residential purposes”. 5

The landlord said that the tenant does not live at the premises. It is solely used for her place of business.

Accordingly, I consider this is a commercial premises to which the RTA does not apply, and the Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction.

The application is struck out. Name suppression

The landlord did not apply for name suppression.

The Tribunal may on its own initiative, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest, order the name or any identifying particulars of any party not be published. 6 1 See section 4 of the RTA. 2 Section 5(1)(a) of the RTA. 3 Section 2(1) of the RTA. 4 See section 2 of the RTA. 5 See section 2 (3) of the RTA. 6 See section 95 A (4) of the RTA.

In the circumstances of this case, I consider it is in the tenant’s interests to be granted name suppression and make an order accordingly.

Reasons