What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5280122 about?

The tribunal order states: By consent, [The party] and Tania Annette Ambrosius as executor of

How much money was awarded in case 5280122?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5280122?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5280122?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12427710-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5280122 about?

The tribunal order states: By consent, [The party] and Tania Annette Ambrosius as executor of

How much money was awarded in case 5280122?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5280122?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5280122?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12427710-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

50 Hawthorne Street, Strowan, Christchurch 8052 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5280122 — Tenancy dispute

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Mo appeared as counsel for the applicant, Mr Davis and Ms Gunn as counsel for the occupier Mr Grant.

The applicant has applied for possession of the premises under section 65 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) on the basis that Mr Grant is unlawfully in possession of the premises.

Mr Grant has live proceedings against [The party] under the Family Protection Act 1955 and under the Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act 1949.

Given the decision of the High Court in Sergeant v Nigro and Tapsell 1 that undetermined proceedings in other Courts are no bar to the Tribunal making a possession order under section 65 RTA, counsel for Mr Grant conceded that the Tribunal could make the possession order. I clarified with both counsel, and they confirmed, that the Tribunal could make a possession order by consent.

When should the owner be granted possession?

The only issue in dispute is when possession should be granted to the legal owner.

Usually, on an application such as this, the Tribunal would order immediate possession. However, it has a discretion when setting the possession date.

Counsel for Mr Grant referred me to the decision of the Tribunal in The applicant/s v The respondent/s 2 where, on a similar application, the Tribunal set the possession date out by 4 weeks.

Each case must be determined on its facts and the facts in that case were not identical to Mr Grant’s situation.

Mr Davis sought a slightly more than 2-month period before possession is granted, 2 weeks after the judicial settlement conference (scheduled for 12 November 2025), so a possession date of 26 November 2025.

Ms Mo, for the applicant said that a 2-week period was sufficient.

One important factor in this case is that Mr Grant has a social housing tenancy for a bed-sit. He is therefore able to move back to that tenancy immediately. Indeed, social housing tenancies often contain a term in the tenancy agreement that the tenant remain in possession and not be absent from the tenancy premises for a defined period.

The only barriers for Mr Grant are the removal of his possessions and the relocation of pets, including an aged magpie domesticated since it was young. The current premises are set up to provide a safe environment for the magpie.

Mo Mo said that Ms Ambrosius was willing and able to accommodate any pets until a rehoming arrangement could be made. Her aunt is experienced in the care of a domesticated magpie so the care of the magpie could be managed. 1 2019] NZHC 328 2 [2025] NZTT 5184931

The Tribunal would not delay a possession order in favour of a legal owner based on the welfare of a pet magpie. Organisations exist for the welfare of birds in this situation.

Ms Mo submitted that a 2-week period was a reasonable exercise of the Tribunal’s discretion for granting possession. I agree. Without that concession I would have ordered possession earlier.

While Mr Grant might have lived at the premises for a long time, he will not be rendered homeless because he has his own tenancy premises to move to. Result

Possession is granted to the legal owner of the premises at 11.59pm on Thursday 2 October 2025. Costs

Mr Grant is in receipt of legal aid so legal costs cannot be awarded against him. Ms Mo accepted that (having previously indicated that costs would be sought). Both counsel agreed that costs should lie where they fall.

Order

By consent, [The party] and Tania Annette Ambrosius as executor of [The party] are granted possession of the premises at 50 Hawthorne Street, Strowan, Christchurch 8052.
By order of the Tribunal the date of possession is fixed at 11.59pm on Thursday 2 October 2025.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing. Ms Mo appeared as counsel for the applicant, Mr Davis and Ms Gunn as counsel for the occupier Mr Grant.
The applicant has applied for possession of the premises under section 65 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) on the basis that Mr Grant is unlawfully in possession of the premises.
Mr Grant has live proceedings against [The party] under the Family Protection Act 1955 and under the Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act 1949.
Given the decision of the High Court in Sergeant v Nigro and Tapsell 1 that undetermined proceedings in other Courts are no bar to the Tribunal making a possession order under section 65 RTA, counsel for Mr Grant conceded that the Tribunal could make the possession order. I clarified with both counsel, and they confirmed, that the Tribunal could make a possession order by consent.

When should the owner be granted possession?

The only issue in dispute is when possession should be granted to the legal owner.
Usually, on an application such as this, the Tribunal would order immediate possession. However, it has a discretion when setting the possession date.
Counsel for Mr Grant referred me to the decision of the Tribunal in The applicant/s v The respondent/s 2 where, on a similar application, the Tribunal set the possession date out by 4 weeks.
Each case must be determined on its facts and the facts in that case were not identical to Mr Grant’s situation.
Mr Davis sought a slightly more than 2-month period before possession is granted, 2 weeks after the judicial settlement conference (scheduled for 12 November 2025), so a possession date of 26 November 2025.
Ms Mo, for the applicant said that a 2-week period was sufficient.
One important factor in this case is that Mr Grant has a social housing tenancy for a bed-sit. He is therefore able to move back to that tenancy immediately. Indeed, social housing tenancies often contain a term in the tenancy agreement that the tenant remain in possession and not be absent from the tenancy premises for a defined period.
The only barriers for Mr Grant are the removal of his possessions and the relocation of pets, including an aged magpie domesticated since it was young. The current premises are set up to provide a safe environment for the magpie.
Mo Mo said that Ms Ambrosius was willing and able to accommodate any pets until a rehoming arrangement could be made. Her aunt is experienced in the care of a domesticated magpie so the care of the magpie could be managed. 1 2019] NZHC 328 2 [2025] NZTT 5184931
The Tribunal would not delay a possession order in favour of a legal owner based on the welfare of a pet magpie. Organisations exist for the welfare of birds in this situation.
Ms Mo submitted that a 2-week period was a reasonable exercise of the Tribunal’s discretion for granting possession. I agree. Without that concession I would have ordered possession earlier.
While Mr Grant might have lived at the premises for a long time, he will not be rendered homeless because he has his own tenancy premises to move to. Result
Possession is granted to the legal owner of the premises at 11.59pm on Thursday 2 October 2025. Costs
Mr Grant is in receipt of legal aid so legal costs cannot be awarded against him. Ms Mo accepted that (having previously indicated that costs would be sought). Both counsel agreed that costs should lie where they fall.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5280122 — Tenancy dispute at 50 Hawthorne Street, Strowan, Christchurch 8052

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5280122 — Tenancy dispute at 50 Hawthorne Street, Strowan, Christchurch 8052

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

When should the owner be granted possession?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

When should the owner be granted possession?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions