What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5271899?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

How much money was awarded in case 5271899?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5271899?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5271899?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12412390-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5271899?

The tribunal order states: The tenant’s application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

How much money was awarded in case 5271899?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5271899?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5271899?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12412390-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

390 Neilson Street, Penrose, Auckland 0614 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5271899 — Exemplary damages

Order

The tenant’s application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held remotely by teleconference on 15 September 2025.
Ms Sherilyn Faith Eagleton appeared in her capacity as one of the Trustees of the Faith Trust, which owns the property.
Mr Yuangtao Song appeared for Flooring & Tile Design Ltd as a director. Mr Song and the Tribunal were supported by the services a mandarin interpreter.
The applicant seeks compensation, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee. However, the respondent challenged whether the jurisdiction was correct given the commercial nature of the tenancy.
Given the issue of jurisdiction has been raised by the landlord, I must determine that at the outset. The purpose of today’s hearing was to hear oral evidence from both parties regarding the nature of the tenancy and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Evidence was not heard on the tenant’s substantive claims. Those claims will only be heard where the Tribunal finds it has jurisdiction over this tenancy. Evidential burden
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
I note that whilst I may not have referred to all the evidence presented in writing prior to the hearing and orally at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. The parties
The tenant’s Agreement to Lease is with Henry Desmond Masters and Grant Henry Masters as Trustees for Neilson Street Trust, Trusts Ltd.
Ms Eagleton confirmed that these Trustees are her brother and father and that this Trust was dissolved, and the Faith Trust was formed on 14 October 2022. At that time the Faith Trust took over ownership of all the assets of the Neilson Street Trust, Trusts Ltd and two new Trustees were appointed, being Sherilyn Faith Eagleton and Michelle Janice Wong.
From 14 October 2022, the Faith Trust has been the tenant’s new landlord. It was given notice of this change but brought these proceedings in the name of the prior owner/landlord. The landlord’s name on the intituling has been amended to reflect the correct name of the current landlord.

Does the Tenancy Tribunal have jurisdiction over this tenancy?

The law

For claims to be within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, the relevant premises must be residential premises .
Section 4 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) reads: “This Act applies to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically provided.”
“Tenancy” is defined in section 2 of the Act as follows: “tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent; and includes any tenancy of residential premises implied or created by any enactment; and, where appropriate, also includes a former tenancy ....”.
Section 5 of the Act contains the exceptions to the Act. Relevantly, s 5(1)(a) of the Act provides: “The Act shall not apply where the premises are commercial premises.”
This provision confirms the RTA does not apply to commercial premises, meaning premises that are related to trade or commerce and not residential premises. The District Court has stated that in order to give effect to the RTA’s true intent and meaning, the exemptions in section 5 should be interpreted strictly and not liberally. See Adams v Massey University Palmerston North TT 43/94, 10 October 1994.
Section 2(3) of the RTA provides: “For the purposes of this Act, where any premises that are subject to a legal or an equitable lease are used for both commercial and residential purposes, the premises shall be deemed to be residential premises unless it is proved that the premises were let principally for purposes other than residential purposes.” The facts
The parties agree the property in question was advertised as commercial premises for lease under a commercial lease and both parties intended this to be a commercial lease when they entered it. The commercial “agreement to lease” (“Agreement”)signed by the parties on 25 January 2016 contains terms and conditions common to commercial leases and that would never be found in residential tenancy agreements. For example: a. The lease is for four years, at a standard monthly rental of $5,416.67 plus GST per month ($65,000.00 plus GST per annum), with one further right of renewal for 3 years each (Refer clauses 1,5 and 8 in the First Schedule); b. First Schedule, Clause 10 of the Agreement states the rent can only be renewed every two years and CPI is to be used to review the rent; c. First Schedule, Clause 12 of the Agreement refers to the purpose of the Agreement is for Business Use, specifically for Wholesale/Retail of Flooring and Tiles; d. First Schedule, Clause 11 of the Agreement contains a default interest rate of 14 percent per annum; and e. First Schedule, Clause 17 of the Agreement provides for the tenant to take responsibility for 100 percent of the outgoings, estimated at $9,000.00 plus GST per annum.
The landlord describes the premise at 390 Neilson Street, Penrose, Auckland as a being a commercial warehouse with offices, a showroom, no shower or bath, two toilets, a basin, a kitchenette with a basin and hot water cylinder. It states there is no oven in the kitchenette.
The tenant confirms this is not a residential tenancy and states that he made this application because he did not know which was the correct forum for bringing his claims. He states has never lived at the premise and have never used the premise for any residential purpose. Mr Song stated that he occasionally stays overnight at the premise for work reasons and when he does, he sleeps on a temporary air bed.
It is clear from the facts set out above that the premise has been used solely for commercial and not residential purposes so there is no need to analyse whether the premise was used for mixed purposes.
I find the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction as the relationship is commercial and excluded pursuant to s5(1)(a) of the RTA. As such all the tenant’s applications, including those for suppression, must be dismissed.

Order

The tenant’s application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held remotely by teleconference on 15 September 2025.
Ms Sherilyn Faith Eagleton appeared in her capacity as one of the Trustees of the Faith Trust, which owns the property.
Mr Yuangtao Song appeared for Flooring & Tile Design Ltd as a director. Mr Song and the Tribunal were supported by the services a mandarin interpreter.
The applicant seeks compensation, exemplary damages and reimbursement of the filing fee. However, the respondent challenged whether the jurisdiction was correct given the commercial nature of the tenancy.
Given the issue of jurisdiction has been raised by the landlord, I must determine that at the outset. The purpose of today’s hearing was to hear oral evidence from both parties regarding the nature of the tenancy and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Evidence was not heard on the tenant’s substantive claims. Those claims will only be heard where the Tribunal finds it has jurisdiction over this tenancy. Evidential burden
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities”. The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof”. Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence.
In summary, I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than uncertain. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral evidence during the hearing). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely. If any claim is not established to the balance of probability, it must be dismissed.
I note that whilst I may not have referred to all the evidence presented in writing prior to the hearing and orally at the hearing, the parties can be assured that it has all been considered. The parties
The tenant’s Agreement to Lease is with Henry Desmond Masters and Grant Henry Masters as Trustees for Neilson Street Trust, Trusts Ltd.
Ms Eagleton confirmed that these Trustees are her brother and father and that this Trust was dissolved, and the Faith Trust was formed on 14 October 2022. At that time the Faith Trust took over ownership of all the assets of the Neilson Street Trust, Trusts Ltd and two new Trustees were appointed, being Sherilyn Faith Eagleton and Michelle Janice Wong.
From 14 October 2022, the Faith Trust has been the tenant’s new landlord. It was given notice of this change but brought these proceedings in the name of the prior owner/landlord. The landlord’s name on the intituling has been amended to reflect the correct name of the current landlord.

Does the Tenancy Tribunal have jurisdiction over this tenancy?

The law

For claims to be within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, the relevant premises must be residential premises .
Section 4 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) reads: “This Act applies to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically provided.”
“Tenancy” is defined in section 2 of the Act as follows: “tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent; and includes any tenancy of residential premises implied or created by any enactment; and, where appropriate, also includes a former tenancy ....”.
Section 5 of the Act contains the exceptions to the Act. Relevantly, s 5(1)(a) of the Act provides: “The Act shall not apply where the premises are commercial premises.”
This provision confirms the RTA does not apply to commercial premises, meaning premises that are related to trade or commerce and not residential premises. The District Court has stated that in order to give effect to the RTA’s true intent and meaning, the exemptions in section 5 should be interpreted strictly and not liberally. See Adams v Massey University Palmerston North TT 43/94, 10 October 1994.
Section 2(3) of the RTA provides: “For the purposes of this Act, where any premises that are subject to a legal or an equitable lease are used for both commercial and residential purposes, the premises shall be deemed to be residential premises unless it is proved that the premises were let principally for purposes other than residential purposes.” The facts
The parties agree the property in question was advertised as commercial premises for lease under a commercial lease and both parties intended this to be a commercial lease when they entered it. The commercial “agreement to lease” (“Agreement”)signed by the parties on 25 January 2016 contains terms and conditions common to commercial leases and that would never be found in residential tenancy agreements. For example: a. The lease is for four years, at a standard monthly rental of $5,416.67 plus GST per month ($65,000.00 plus GST per annum), with one further right of renewal for 3 years each (Refer clauses 1,5 and 8 in the First Schedule); b. First Schedule, Clause 10 of the Agreement states the rent can only be renewed every two years and CPI is to be used to review the rent; c. First Schedule, Clause 12 of the Agreement refers to the purpose of the Agreement is for Business Use, specifically for Wholesale/Retail of Flooring and Tiles; d. First Schedule, Clause 11 of the Agreement contains a default interest rate of 14 percent per annum; and e. First Schedule, Clause 17 of the Agreement provides for the tenant to take responsibility for 100 percent of the outgoings, estimated at $9,000.00 plus GST per annum.
The landlord describes the premise at 390 Neilson Street, Penrose, Auckland as a being a commercial warehouse with offices, a showroom, no shower or bath, two toilets, a basin, a kitchenette with a basin and hot water cylinder. It states there is no oven in the kitchenette.
The tenant confirms this is not a residential tenancy and states that he made this application because he did not know which was the correct forum for bringing his claims. He states has never lived at the premise and have never used the premise for any residential purpose. Mr Song stated that he occasionally stays overnight at the premise for work reasons and when he does, he sleeps on a temporary air bed.
It is clear from the facts set out above that the premise has been used solely for commercial and not residential purposes so there is no need to analyse whether the premise was used for mixed purposes.
I find the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction as the relationship is commercial and excluded pursuant to s5(1)(a) of the RTA. As such all the tenant’s applications, including those for suppression, must be dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5271899 — Exemplary damages at 390 Neilson Street, Penrose, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5271899 — Exemplary damages at 390 Neilson Street, Penrose, Auckland 0614

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the Tenancy Tribunal have jurisdiction over this tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the Tenancy Tribunal have jurisdiction over this tenancy?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions