What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5185654 about?

The tribunal order states: [The party] is granted

How much money was awarded in case 5185654?

Of Maria Hokai: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5185654?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5185654?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11808696-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5185654 about?

The tribunal order states: [The party] is granted

How much money was awarded in case 5185654?

Of Maria Hokai: $27.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5185654?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5185654?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11808696-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

123 Omaunu Road, Kaeo, RD 2, Kaeo 0479 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5185654 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5185654. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
of Maria Hokai	$27.00		of Maria Hokai

Order

[The party] is granted possession of the premises at 123 Omaunu Road, Kaeo, RD 2, Kaeo 0479 at
59pm on Sunday 18 May 2025.
[The party] is to pay [The party] $27.00 immediately being the filing fee paid by the applicant.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which I conducted by phone today. Mr Biddle attended as counsel for the applicant. Ms Harris attended as well supported by Ms Stevens who provided a written statement shortly before the hearing.
The landlord has applied for possession of the premises under section 65 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). That section requires the Tribunal to make a possession order granting possession of the premises to any person entitled to possession, in this case Ms Phillips as the administrator of the Estate of [The party].
I need not canvas the background in any detail as it is set out in the Tribunal’s decision dated 22 August 2023 1 and in the decision by His Honour Judge de Ridder dated 4 March 2024 2 on an appeal against the Tribunal’s refusal to grant a rehearing.
Nothing has changed factually since the decisions I have referred to. I simply need quote from the previous Tribunal decision:
Section 65 RTA provides that the Tribunal must grant a possession order in favour of a person entitled to possession, against a person in possession of the premises as a squatter, trespasser or otherwise under right of occupation granted to that person by any person having lawful authority to do so.
The premises must, for the Tribunal to have jurisdiction, be “residential premises”. I did not understand either party to suggest that the premises were anything other than residential premises and I find that they are residential premises.
Having made that finding, the remaining issue is whether jurisdiction occurs as a result of s.65 RTA which provides the Tribunal with the power to evict any person who does not have any lawful right to occupation.
Mr Mark accepted that the right of occupation on which his client relies is that of a potential beneficiary under a testamentary promises claim.
The authors of Westlaw’s commentary on Residential Tenancies in reference to s.65 RTA, note that “In addition to evicting actual squatters, the section has been used to evict occupants where beneficiaries of an estate have taken possession without lawful authority (See Henderson v Douglas DC Tauranga TT 418/03 , 21 October 2003).
I find for the reasons set out above that the Tribunal does have jurisdiction in this matter.
Having made that finding, I move onto the issue of the application for eviction pursuant to s.65 RTA.
These are residential premises.
The occupier is not in possession pursuant to any right of occupation granted by any person with lawful authority to grant that right. The occupier is at best a potential beneficiary. A claim pursuant to the Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act 1949 has not been filed by the occupier as of the date of this hearing.
The present application has been made because the timeframe for enforcing the Tribunal’s previous possession order passed due to the rehearing and 1 [2023] NZTT 4612032 2 [2024] NZDC 4123 appeal proceedings and an attempt at a negotiated settlement. In that sense, this application is procedural, seeking a fresh possession order for enforcement purposes.
The occupier has no lawful right of possession of the premises. She said today that proceedings under the Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act 1949 are ‘in the process of being filed’ but that is not a barrier to the applicant seeking a possession order.
As Judge de Ridder observed when considering the appeal against the Tribunal’s decision not to grant a rehearing: As there was no tenancy in this case, the Tribunal’s powers were confined solely to s 65 of the Act. As at the date of the Tribunal hearing there was no finding made by any Court of competent jurisdiction that Ms Harris had a right to occupy the property either pursuant to a testamentary promise, or a constructive trust. ... The Tribunal decision of course does not affect Ms Harris’ rights to pursue a claim based on a testamentary promise, or on a constructive trust, but she is not able to pursue such claims in the Tenancy Tribunal.
There is no basis on which the Tribunal could reach any other decision than that reached by the Tribunal in its decision on the applicant’s first application. Nothing has changed since. The occupier remains unlawfully in possession.
The wording of section 65 RTA requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that the applicant is entitled to possession. It is satisfied of that. The fact that there is or will be a claim challenging that entitlement does not change the factual position as confirmed by the High Court in Sergeant v Nigro 3 .
Possession is granted to the applicant at 11.59pm on Sunday 18 May 2025.
The occupier must pay the applicant’s filing fee on the successful application.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5185654. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
of Maria Hokai	$27.00		of Maria Hokai

Order

[The party] is granted possession of the premises at 123 Omaunu Road, Kaeo, RD 2, Kaeo 0479 at
59pm on Sunday 18 May 2025.
[The party] is to pay [The party] $27.00 immediately being the filing fee paid by the applicant.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which I conducted by phone today. Mr Biddle attended as counsel for the applicant. Ms Harris attended as well supported by Ms Stevens who provided a written statement shortly before the hearing.
The landlord has applied for possession of the premises under section 65 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). That section requires the Tribunal to make a possession order granting possession of the premises to any person entitled to possession, in this case Ms Phillips as the administrator of the Estate of [The party].
I need not canvas the background in any detail as it is set out in the Tribunal’s decision dated 22 August 2023 1 and in the decision by His Honour Judge de Ridder dated 4 March 2024 2 on an appeal against the Tribunal’s refusal to grant a rehearing.
Nothing has changed factually since the decisions I have referred to. I simply need quote from the previous Tribunal decision:
Section 65 RTA provides that the Tribunal must grant a possession order in favour of a person entitled to possession, against a person in possession of the premises as a squatter, trespasser or otherwise under right of occupation granted to that person by any person having lawful authority to do so.
The premises must, for the Tribunal to have jurisdiction, be “residential premises”. I did not understand either party to suggest that the premises were anything other than residential premises and I find that they are residential premises.
Having made that finding, the remaining issue is whether jurisdiction occurs as a result of s.65 RTA which provides the Tribunal with the power to evict any person who does not have any lawful right to occupation.
Mr Mark accepted that the right of occupation on which his client relies is that of a potential beneficiary under a testamentary promises claim.
The authors of Westlaw’s commentary on Residential Tenancies in reference to s.65 RTA, note that “In addition to evicting actual squatters, the section has been used to evict occupants where beneficiaries of an estate have taken possession without lawful authority (See Henderson v Douglas DC Tauranga TT 418/03 , 21 October 2003).
I find for the reasons set out above that the Tribunal does have jurisdiction in this matter.
Having made that finding, I move onto the issue of the application for eviction pursuant to s.65 RTA.
These are residential premises.
The occupier is not in possession pursuant to any right of occupation granted by any person with lawful authority to grant that right. The occupier is at best a potential beneficiary. A claim pursuant to the Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act 1949 has not been filed by the occupier as of the date of this hearing.
The present application has been made because the timeframe for enforcing the Tribunal’s previous possession order passed due to the rehearing and 1 [2023] NZTT 4612032 2 [2024] NZDC 4123 appeal proceedings and an attempt at a negotiated settlement. In that sense, this application is procedural, seeking a fresh possession order for enforcement purposes.
The occupier has no lawful right of possession of the premises. She said today that proceedings under the Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act 1949 are ‘in the process of being filed’ but that is not a barrier to the applicant seeking a possession order.
As Judge de Ridder observed when considering the appeal against the Tribunal’s decision not to grant a rehearing: As there was no tenancy in this case, the Tribunal’s powers were confined solely to s 65 of the Act. As at the date of the Tribunal hearing there was no finding made by any Court of competent jurisdiction that Ms Harris had a right to occupy the property either pursuant to a testamentary promise, or a constructive trust. ... The Tribunal decision of course does not affect Ms Harris’ rights to pursue a claim based on a testamentary promise, or on a constructive trust, but she is not able to pursue such claims in the Tenancy Tribunal.
There is no basis on which the Tribunal could reach any other decision than that reached by the Tribunal in its decision on the applicant’s first application. Nothing has changed since. The occupier remains unlawfully in possession.
The wording of section 65 RTA requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that the applicant is entitled to possession. It is satisfied of that. The fact that there is or will be a claim challenging that entitlement does not change the factual position as confirmed by the High Court in Sergeant v Nigro 3 .
Possession is granted to the applicant at 11.59pm on Sunday 18 May 2025.
The occupier must pay the applicant’s filing fee on the successful application.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5185654 — Tenancy dispute at 123 Omaunu Road, Kaeo, RD 2, Kaeo 0479

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5185654 — Tenancy dispute at 123 Omaunu Road, Kaeo, RD 2, Kaeo 0479

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