What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5291266 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 5291266?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5291266?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5291266?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12112080-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5291266 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 5291266?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5291266?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5291266?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12112080-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5291266 — Tenancy dispute

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the [Landlord] name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] is granted possession of the premises at [Tenancy address suppressed] immediately.

Reasons

This matter concerns an application by [The owner], through [The landlord/s], for a possession order in respect of the property located at [Tenancy address suppressed].
The application was heard with the participation of [The landlord’s representatives] on behalf of [The landlord/s]. The individuals identified as the current occupants of the property—known only by their first names, Joe and Grant—did not attend the hearing. There were also other unidentified occupants. Joe and Grant did not provide their last names.
Attempts were made during the hearing to contact both Joe and Grant by telephone using the numbers provided to [The landlord/s]. Two voicemails were left for each, and a further round of calls was made after 10 minutes. Neither occupant responded or joined the proceeding. In the absence of any engagement from Joe or Grant, and with notice of the hearing previously served, I proceeded to hear and determine the application in their absence. The Facts
The subject property at [Tenancy address suppressed], formerly the site of the [school], is owned by [The owner] and administered by [The landlord/s]. It forms part of [redacted] and is subject to [redacted] under [agreement] with [Iwi trust]. [The owner] intends to transfer the property to the iwi [redacted] and seeks vacant possession to facilitate that transfer.
The property has been subject to unlawful occupation since at least 2011. [The landlord/s] previously identified a man named [Previous occupant] as the initial unlawful occupier. Although [Previous occupant] is no longer residing at the property, he confirmed to [The landlord/s] that two other men, identified only as Joe and Grant, are currently living there. [Previous occupant] provided their contact details to [The landlord/s].
On 19 February 2025, [The landlord/s] issued a Notice to Vacate addressed to "[Previous occupant] and Occupants," advising that the premises must be vacated by 20 May 2025. This notice was affixed to the front door of the building. Despite this, as confirmed by subsequent site visits, the occupants have remained. The site is visibly used for residential purposes and contains significant personal property, including boats, trucks, and heavy equipment.
At the hearing, [The landlord/s] submitted that it had made repeated attempts to engage with the occupants, who were uncooperative and unwilling to provide full identification details. Despite the notice to vacate and follow-up visits by field agents from [redacted], the individuals have not complied and have made no formal claims to any legal right of occupation.
[The landlord/s] confirmed that it holds legal title to the property and has never granted any licence, lease, or other form of authority for the current occupants to reside there. The property is intended to be transferred as part of a [agreement], and vacant possession is required to fulfil the [The owner]’s obligations under that [agreement]. The law Sergeant v Nigro
Charles Sergeant had lived for many years in a property owned initially by his de facto partner, Maureen Tapsell. In 2001, the couple signed a relationship property agreement affirming that the property was Maureen’s separate property. The property was later transferred to the Tapsell Family Trust, with Maureen and her children (the respondents) as trustees. After Maureen's death in 2016, Mr Sergeant continued living in the property rent-free. The trustees eventually sought to recover possession of the home, while Mr Sergeant initiated proceedings in the High Court claiming rights to the property based on relationship property and constructive trust grounds, including a claim for lifetime occupancy. Before the High Court proceedings were resolved, the trustees obtained a possession order from the Tenancy Tribunal under section 65 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Section 65 of the RTA states: (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. District Court Decision – Sergeant v Nigro [2020] DCR 132
Judge Mabey QC upheld the Tribunal’s decision, affirming that Mr Sergeant was a squatter and had no legal right to occupy the property. The judge ruled that section 85 of the RTA, which allows the Tribunal to determine disputes on the merits between landlords and tenants, did not apply here because there was no landlord-tenant relationship. Instead, the court emphasised the mandatory nature of section 65 and outlined the three jurisdictional thresholds that must be met for the Tribunal to issue a possession order: (1) The premises must be "residential premises" as defined under the Act. (2) The applicant must be legally entitled to possession of the premises. (3) The occupant must be in possession as a squatter, trespasser, or otherwise without any right of occupation granted by a person lawfully entitled to grant it.
The court found all three thresholds were satisfied: the property was residential, the trustees were the legal owners, and Mr Sergeant had no lawful right to remain. It concluded that unresolved High Court claims could not prevent the Tribunal from making an order under section 65. The trustees' cross-appeal also succeeded, reducing Mr Sergeant’s notice to vacate from 42 days to 10 days. High Court Decision – Sergeant v Nigro [2019] NZHC 328
On appeal, the High Court (Gordon J) agreed with the District Court on all substantive points. While it held that section 85 could technically apply to proceedings under section 65, it emphasised that this did not alter the Tribunal’s duty to act once the jurisdictional criteria were satisfied. The High Court confirmed that unresolved claims elsewhere, including Mr Sergeant’s relationship property and constructive trust proceedings, were irrelevant to determining the trustees' present legal entitlement to possession. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the order that Mr Sergeant vacate the property within 10 days. Analysis
The three jurisdictional thresholds required under section 65 of the RTA are clearly satisfied in this matter. First, the premises qualify as “residential premises” under section 2 of the RTA, which includes buildings used or intended for use as a residence, regardless of whether such use is lawful. The building at [Tenancy address suppressed] has been lived in continuously by various individuals and is visibly used for residential purposes, meeting this criterion. Second, [The landlord/s], acting on behalf of [The owner], holds the registered title to the property under the Land Transfer Act 2017, establishing it as the party entitled to possession. [The owner] has not granted any legal right of occupation to the current occupants. Third, the individuals residing on the premises are doing so without any right of occupation granted by [The landlord/s] or any authorised person. The occupants were served with a notice to vacate and have no lease, licence, or any other form of permission from [The owner], rendering them squatters within the meaning of the section.
Accordingly, the statutory requirements under section 65 are met, and a possession order must be granted. Name suppression
I must grant [The landlord/s] name suppression application because they have wholly succeeded in the proceedings.
Accordingly, the names of [The landlord/s] and identifying particulars are suppressed. Filing fee
In the ordinary course of events, cost will follow the event.
However, in the present case, although [The landlord/s] has been successful, but there are no clear respondents from whom to claim the filing fee.
Accordingly, I am not ordering reimbursement from unknown respondents.

Reasons

This matter concerns an application by [The owner], through [The landlord/s], for a possession order in respect of the property located at [Tenancy address suppressed].

The application was heard with the participation of [The landlord’s representatives] on behalf of [The landlord/s]. The individuals identified as the current occupants of the property—known only by their first names, Joe and Grant—did not attend the hearing. There were also other unidentified occupants. Joe and Grant did not provide their last names.

Attempts were made during the hearing to contact both Joe and Grant by telephone using the numbers provided to [The landlord/s]. Two voicemails were left for each, and a further round of calls was made after 10 minutes. Neither occupant responded or joined the proceeding. In the absence of any engagement from Joe or Grant, and with notice of the hearing previously served, I proceeded to hear and determine the application in their absence. The Facts

The subject property at [Tenancy address suppressed], formerly the site of the [school], is owned by [The owner] and administered by [The landlord/s]. It forms part of [redacted] and is subject to [redacted] under [agreement] with [Iwi trust]. [The owner] intends to transfer the property to the iwi [redacted] and seeks vacant possession to facilitate that transfer.

The property has been subject to unlawful occupation since at least 2011. [The landlord/s] previously identified a man named [Previous occupant] as the initial unlawful occupier. Although [Previous occupant] is no longer residing at the property, he confirmed to [The landlord/s] that two other men, identified only as Joe and Grant, are currently living there. [Previous occupant] provided their contact details to [The landlord/s].

On 19 February 2025, [The landlord/s] issued a Notice to Vacate addressed to "[Previous occupant] and Occupants," advising that the premises must be vacated by 20 May 2025. This notice was affixed to the front door of the building. Despite this, as confirmed by subsequent site visits, the occupants have remained. The site is visibly used for residential purposes and contains significant personal property, including boats, trucks, and heavy equipment.

At the hearing, [The landlord/s] submitted that it had made repeated attempts to engage with the occupants, who were uncooperative and unwilling to provide full identification details. Despite the notice to vacate and follow-up visits by field agents from [redacted], the individuals have not complied and have made no formal claims to any legal right of occupation.

[The landlord/s] confirmed that it holds legal title to the property and has never granted any licence, lease, or other form of authority for the current occupants to reside there. The property is intended to be transferred as part of a [agreement], and vacant possession is required to fulfil the [The owner]’s obligations under that [agreement]. The law Sergeant v Nigro

Charles Sergeant had lived for many years in a property owned initially by his de facto partner, Maureen Tapsell. In 2001, the couple signed a relationship property agreement affirming that the property was Maureen’s separate property. The property was later transferred to the Tapsell Family Trust, with Maureen and her children (the respondents) as trustees. After Maureen's death in 2016, Mr Sergeant continued living in the property rent-free. The trustees eventually sought to recover possession of the home, while Mr Sergeant initiated proceedings in the High Court claiming rights to the property based on relationship property and constructive trust grounds, including a claim for lifetime occupancy. Before the High Court proceedings were resolved, the trustees obtained a possession order from the Tenancy Tribunal under section 65 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).

Section 65 of the RTA states: (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. District Court Decision – Sergeant v Nigro [2020] DCR 132

Judge Mabey QC upheld the Tribunal’s decision, affirming that Mr Sergeant was a squatter and had no legal right to occupy the property. The judge ruled that section 85 of the RTA, which allows the Tribunal to determine disputes on the merits between landlords and tenants, did not apply here because there was no landlord-tenant relationship. Instead, the court emphasised the mandatory nature of section 65 and outlined the three jurisdictional thresholds that must be met for the Tribunal to issue a possession order: (1) The premises must be "residential premises" as defined under the Act. (2) The applicant must be legally entitled to possession of the premises. (3) The occupant must be in possession as a squatter, trespasser, or otherwise without any right of occupation granted by a person lawfully entitled to grant it.

The court found all three thresholds were satisfied: the property was residential, the trustees were the legal owners, and Mr Sergeant had no lawful right to remain. It concluded that unresolved High Court claims could not prevent the Tribunal from making an order under section 65. The trustees' cross-appeal also succeeded, reducing Mr Sergeant’s notice to vacate from 42 days to 10 days. High Court Decision – Sergeant v Nigro [2019] NZHC 328

On appeal, the High Court (Gordon J) agreed with the District Court on all substantive points. While it held that section 85 could technically apply to proceedings under section 65, it emphasised that this did not alter the Tribunal’s duty to act once the jurisdictional criteria were satisfied. The High Court confirmed that unresolved claims elsewhere, including Mr Sergeant’s relationship property and constructive trust proceedings, were irrelevant to determining the trustees' present legal entitlement to possession. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the order that Mr Sergeant vacate the property within 10 days. Analysis

The three jurisdictional thresholds required under section 65 of the RTA are clearly satisfied in this matter. First, the premises qualify as “residential premises” under section 2 of the RTA, which includes buildings used or intended for use as a residence, regardless of whether such use is lawful. The building at [Tenancy address suppressed] has been lived in continuously by various individuals and is visibly used for residential purposes, meeting this criterion. Second, [The landlord/s], acting on behalf of [The owner], holds the registered title to the property under the Land Transfer Act 2017, establishing it as the party entitled to possession. [The owner] has not granted any legal right of occupation to the current occupants. Third, the individuals residing on the premises are doing so without any right of occupation granted by [The landlord/s] or any authorised person. The occupants were served with a notice to vacate and have no lease, licence, or any other form of permission from [The owner], rendering them squatters within the meaning of the section.

Accordingly, the statutory requirements under section 65 are met, and a possession order must be granted. Name suppression

I must grant [The landlord/s] name suppression application because they have wholly succeeded in the proceedings.

Accordingly, the names of [The landlord/s] and identifying particulars are suppressed. Filing fee

In the ordinary course of events, cost will follow the event.

However, in the present case, although [The landlord/s] has been successful, but there are no clear respondents from whom to claim the filing fee.

Accordingly, I am not ordering reimbursement from unknown respondents.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5291266 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5291266 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions