What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5204832 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s correct legal name is GK Group Property Limited trading as

How much money was awarded in case 5204832?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5204832?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5204832?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11653139-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5204832 about?

The tribunal order states: The landlord’s correct legal name is GK Group Property Limited trading as

How much money was awarded in case 5204832?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5204832?

The primary dispute was 14-day notice.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5204832?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11653139-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5204832 — 14-day notice

Order

The landlord’s correct legal name is GK Group Property Limited trading as Sunny House Management Solutions.
The Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing by teleconference with Mr Shi representing the landlord.
The landlord on the tenancy agreement is recorded as Sunny House Management Solutions. The landlord explained that this is a trade name, and the correct legal name of the landlord entity is GK Group Property Limited. I noted that the landlord must ensure that the correct legal name is recorded on the tenancy agreement so that the correct party can sue and be sued under the contract.
The subject premises is an apartment in a multi-storey central Auckland building.
The landlord seeks an order terminating the tenancy on the grounds that the tenant has breached a term of his tenancy agreement by operating a commercial business from the apartment, namely a brothel.
The landlord bears the onus of proving its claim to the required civil standard of ‘on the balance of probabilities.’
Section 56 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that the Tribunal may make an order terminating a tenancy for breach of the tenancy agreement or the RTA. In cases where a party’s breach of the tenancy agreement is capable of remedy, the other party must first serve a notice specifying the nature of the breach and requiring the other party to remedy the breach within a period of not less than 14 days. If the other party fails to remedy the breach within the required period, the Tribunal may consider terminating the tenancy provided the breach is of such a nature or of such an extent that it would be inequitable to refuse to make an order terminating the tenancy.
A 14-day breach notice was served by the landlord on the tenant on 26 February 2025. The notice alleged that the property was being used for a commercial purpose.
The tenancy agreement provides that: “The tenant shall use the property principally for residential purposes...” This clause mirrors similar words in section 40(1)(b) RTA except s40 refers to the tenant ensuring that the premises are “occupied” not “used” principally for residential purposes.
The RTA specifically envisages that premises may be used for both commercial and residential purposes - see section 2(3) RTA. However, it is necessary that the premises are being principally used or occupied by the tenant as a place for him to live. The determination of this in each case will be a matter of degree and will depend upon the specific facts. There is no 'hard and fast rule' that applies to determine the issue The landlord’s evidence
Mr Shi and Ms Sun, the directors of the landlord company, received a report from the building manager that he had seen an advertisement promoting sex services from this apartment, although the street address used is not the same as the street address on the tenancy agreement. The landlord explained that because this building is located on a corner site, it has two street addresses.
The building manager showed Mr Shi and Ms Sun a text message (produced in evidence) which appeared to be from a sex worker confirming her availability and that the client should come to this apartment number for sex services. Mr Shi was unable to confirm the origin of the text message and who it was between. He says the building manager did not want to share the information with him. The building manager was not called to give evidence.
The landlord provided copies of various internet advertisements for sex services operating at the address for the building. The advertisements do not specify the apartment number, only the address for the building. Screen shots of photos of an Asian woman advertising her services as a sex worker from the building were also provided as evidence.
The landlord also provided CCTV images collected by the building manager purporting to show men and women coming and going from the premises at various times of the day and night. The landlord suggests that the women are sex workers operating from the premises and the men are their clients.
On receiving the building manager’s report, the landlord gave notice to inspect the premises on 28 February 2025. The tenant was present along with two Asian women also living at the premises. Mr Shi believes that one of the women was the same woman in the photos advertising her services as a sex worker.
Mr Shi asked the tenant about his female friends. The tenant advised that they are both Thai. One of them is his girlfriend and the other is her friend. He stated that both are University students. The tenant denied the allegations.
The landlord served a 14-day breach notice and says that the activity has not ceased with CCTV footage continuing to show visitors to the apartment at different hours day and night after service of the notice.
The landlord believes that the tenant is not using the premises as his residence and only the two Asian women are residing there and operating as sex workers.
Mr Shi submitted that if the tenant was also allowing the apartment to be used as a brothel, the tenant mislead the landlord about the purpose. He also noted the tenant’s advice that three people are occupying the premises when the tenancy agreement specifies a maximum of two occupants. He suggests both acts are breaches of the tenancy agreement.
However, the landlord did not apply for termination upon the grounds either that there was a pre-contractual misrepresentation by the tenant nor because the maximum number of occupants has been exceeded. The 14-day breach notice does not refer to either of those alleged breaches. Therefore, any order terminating the tenancy can only be made if the landlord proves that the tenant has breached the tenancy agreement as set out in the landlord’s breach notice. The tenant’s evidence
The tenant confirmed in evidence that he is living at the premises with his girlfriend and her friend, both of whom are of Thai nationality and are University students in Auckland. He says that the website photos of a sex worker supplied by the landlord are not either of his flatmates.
The text message produced by the landlord purportedly from the sex worker confirming that she was operating from the tenant’s apartment number for the premises shows a cell phone number. The tenant says this is not the cell phone number for either of his flatmates.
The tenant says he has not directly put these allegations to his girlfriend’s friend living with them because the landlord had not provided any evidence to link her to the allegations. He says that the CCTV images purporting to show people visiting the premises at various times of the day and night in many instances show people coming out of or standing by the lift. None of the images establish that all those shown have entered the apartment. He says some of the photos are of him.
The tenant also gave evidence that he has been approached by women in the building lift offering sexual services. A google search he conducted shows various people may be operating as sex workers from the building. He denies that such a service is operating from his apartment and confirms that he is using the premises primarily as his place of residence. Discussion and findings
On the evidence put before the Tribunal, I am not satisfied that the landlord has proved that the premises are not being “occupied principally for residential purposes”. While the evidence might suggest that an occupant is operating from the premises as a sex worker, it does not establish that the premises are not also being occupied primarily as a residence by the tenant and his flatmates.
For the sake of completeness, I record my comments at the hearing about tenants operating brothels. Even if a tenant is operating a brothel (or allowing one to operate) from residential premises, it does not automatically follow that there is a breach of the tenancy agreement or the RTA. The Prostitution Reform Act 2003 decriminalised prostitution and created a framework for lawful prostitution. In particular, the Act allows “small owner-operated brothels” (SOOB’s) as defined in section 2 of the Act. These SOOBs may typically operate without an operator certificate or a resource consent, required for larger sexual services businesses. Therefore, it is possible for a tenant to operate a brothel from residential premises lawfully. That fact alone will not be a breach of the tenancy agreement, even though it is a commercial activity.
As the tenant has wholly succeeded in defending the landlord’s claim, I consider that it is appropriate to suppress his name and identifying details because the nature of the claims, even though not proved, may have a pejorative effect on his reputation. In those circumstances, publication is not justified and is not in the public interest. See section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5204832 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5204832 — 14-day notice

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions