What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5209251 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5209251?

The reconciled net award was $27.00.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5209251?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5209251?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11668995-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5209251 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5209251?

The reconciled net award was $27.00.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5209251?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5209251?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11668995-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5209251 — Tenancy dispute

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details. The other parties may be referred to as Mr N and Ms M in any publication.
Land Information New Zealand is granted immediate possession of the premises at [Tenancy address suppressed].
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $27.00 immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, by telephone.
Unfortunately, the Tribunal was unable to connect by telephone with the other parties.
The applicant has applied for possession of the premises on the basis that Mr N and Ms M are squatters and occupying the premises without permission.
In support of the application a copy of the record of title under the Land Transfer Act 2017 and photographs of the structures occupied by Mr N and Ms M were provided.
The land is part of a portfolio of Crown land administered by the applicant for possible future Treaty of Waitangi settlements.
Previously until 2017 Mr N’s late father resided in a dwelling erected on the premises, but following the death of a subsequent tenant the dwelling has been boarded up and is no longer rented.
The applicant submitted that since 2017 Mr N and Ms M had lived in a trailer parked on part of the land without any consent to do so.
In addition, there was also a house bus, which appeared to be occupied. Legislative requirements
Section 65 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides for the eviction of squatters: (1) Where, on the application of any person entitled to possession of any residential premises, the Tribunal is satisfied that any other person is in possession of the premises as a squatter or trespasser, or otherwise than pursuant to any right of occupation granted to that person by any person having lawful authority to grant that right to that other person, the Tribunal shall make a possession order granting possession of the premises to the applicant. (2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall limit or affect the provisions of the Trespass Act 1980, or any other remedy that may be available to the person lawfully entitled to possession of the premises. (3) To avoid doubt, the Tribunal has jurisdiction under this section even though the premises are not subject to a tenancy agreement.
The High Court in Sergeant v Nigro and Tapsell [2019] NZHC 328 considered section 65. The Court found there were three conditions which have to be met before and order can be made: (a) The premises the subject of the application are residential premises. (b) The applicant for possession is entitled to possession of those premises. (c) Another person or persons are in possession as squatters, trespassers, or otherwise than pursuant to any right of occupation granted by a person having lawful authority to do so.

Are the premises residential premises?

Section 2 of the RTA defines residential premises as, “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 premises is or would be unlawful.”
“Premises” includes: (a) any part of any premises; and (b) any land and appurtenances, other than facilities; and (c) any mobile home, caravan, or other means of shelter placed or erected upon any land and intended for occupation on that land.
It follows from the definition that the premises are residential premises.

Is the applicant entitled to possession?

The applicant submitted that they were entitled to possession because they owned the property, no tenancy had been granted to Mr N or Ms M and they had made repeated efforts to persuade them to voluntarily leave.
In Chou v Chou [2016] NZDC 15768 the District Court made it clear that the Tribunal could not evaluate the merits of any claim in another Court in determining whether the applicant had a right to possession. The Tribunal simply has no jurisdiction to consider any other undetermined claims.
The wording of section 65 is clear that the exercise of the jurisdiction does not involve a discretion. If the primary jurisdictional requirements are satisfied, then the Tribunal must make an order for possession. This was confirmed by the District Court in Wallath v Wallath [2021] NZDC 14323.
I find the evidence supports that the applicant is the only party with lawful authority to grant a right of occupation and that no such right has been granted to Mr N or Ms M. Conclusion
As Mr N and Ms M have no lawful right to occupy the premises all the criteria of section 65 have been satisfied and a possession order is granted to the applicant.
[The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim and I must award the filing fee.
Suppression is granted to the applicant pursuant to section 95A(1) because they were wholly successful in the proceedings.
I have exercised the discretion in section 95A(4) to suppress the names of the other party because there is a young child involved.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details. The other parties may be referred to as Mr N and Ms M in any publication.
Land Information New Zealand is granted immediate possession of the premises at [Tenancy address suppressed].
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $27.00 immediately.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing, by telephone.
Unfortunately, the Tribunal was unable to connect by telephone with the other parties.
The applicant has applied for possession of the premises on the basis that Mr N and Ms M are squatters and occupying the premises without permission.
In support of the application a copy of the record of title under the Land Transfer Act 2017 and photographs of the structures occupied by Mr N and Ms M were provided.
The land is part of a portfolio of Crown land administered by the applicant for possible future Treaty of Waitangi settlements.
Previously until 2017 Mr N’s late father resided in a dwelling erected on the premises, but following the death of a subsequent tenant the dwelling has been boarded up and is no longer rented.
The applicant submitted that since 2017 Mr N and Ms M had lived in a trailer parked on part of the land without any consent to do so.
In addition, there was also a house bus, which appeared to be occupied. Legislative requirements
Section 65 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides for the eviction of squatters: (1) Where, on the application of any person entitled to possession of any residential premises, the Tribunal is satisfied that any other person is in possession of the premises as a squatter or trespasser, or otherwise than pursuant to any right of occupation granted to that person by any person having lawful authority to grant that right to that other person, the Tribunal shall make a possession order granting possession of the premises to the applicant. (2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall limit or affect the provisions of the Trespass Act 1980, or any other remedy that may be available to the person lawfully entitled to possession of the premises. (3) To avoid doubt, the Tribunal has jurisdiction under this section even though the premises are not subject to a tenancy agreement.
The High Court in Sergeant v Nigro and Tapsell [2019] NZHC 328 considered section 65. The Court found there were three conditions which have to be met before and order can be made: (a) The premises the subject of the application are residential premises. (b) The applicant for possession is entitled to possession of those premises. (c) Another person or persons are in possession as squatters, trespassers, or otherwise than pursuant to any right of occupation granted by a person having lawful authority to do so.

Are the premises residential premises?

Section 2 of the RTA defines residential premises as, “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 premises is or would be unlawful.”
“Premises” includes: (a) any part of any premises; and (b) any land and appurtenances, other than facilities; and (c) any mobile home, caravan, or other means of shelter placed or erected upon any land and intended for occupation on that land.
It follows from the definition that the premises are residential premises.

Is the applicant entitled to possession?

The applicant submitted that they were entitled to possession because they owned the property, no tenancy had been granted to Mr N or Ms M and they had made repeated efforts to persuade them to voluntarily leave.
In Chou v Chou [2016] NZDC 15768 the District Court made it clear that the Tribunal could not evaluate the merits of any claim in another Court in determining whether the applicant had a right to possession. The Tribunal simply has no jurisdiction to consider any other undetermined claims.
The wording of section 65 is clear that the exercise of the jurisdiction does not involve a discretion. If the primary jurisdictional requirements are satisfied, then the Tribunal must make an order for possession. This was confirmed by the District Court in Wallath v Wallath [2021] NZDC 14323.
I find the evidence supports that the applicant is the only party with lawful authority to grant a right of occupation and that no such right has been granted to Mr N or Ms M. Conclusion
As Mr N and Ms M have no lawful right to occupy the premises all the criteria of section 65 have been satisfied and a possession order is granted to the applicant.
[The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim and I must award the filing fee.
Suppression is granted to the applicant pursuant to section 95A(1) because they were wholly successful in the proceedings.
I have exercised the discretion in section 95A(4) to suppress the names of the other party because there is a young child involved.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5209251 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5209251 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the premises residential premises?

Is the applicant entitled to possession?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the premises residential premises?

Is the applicant entitled to possession?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions