What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5293260 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and

How much money was awarded in case 5293260?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5293260?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5293260?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12322793-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5293260 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and

How much money was awarded in case 5293260?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5293260?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5293260?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12322793-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5293260 — Rent arrears

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

[Trustees for the Trust] appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The landlord seeks an order for the eviction of [ Tenant] on the basis that he is a squatter and has no lawful right of occupation under section 65 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
On 29 May 2025, the landlord filed an application for termination of the tenancy for rent arrears and anti-social behaviour. The landlord also sought an order for possession following the issue of a 42 day notice to terminate the tenancy.
On 10 June 2025, the application was scheduled for remote hearing on 17 June 2025. The trustees appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant. The Tribunal dismissed the claims. In its decision, the Adjudicator suggested that the parties seek advice as to their rights and obligations under the agreement and the Act. While explaining that the Tribunal could not provide legal advice, the Tribunal provided a summary to assist the parties, including reference to the reintroduction of 90 day no-cause terminations on 30 January 2025.
The landlord state that they have attempted to communicate with the tenant but have been verbally threatened with assault. The landlord states that they have attempted to have the tenant trespassed, and that Police advised them to seek an eviction order.
On 19 June 2025, the landlord filed an application to evict the tenant under section 65 of the Act claiming that he was a squatter and had no lawful right of occupation.
The property is a three-bedroom house on the grounds of a decommissioned school. The property and surrounding land were initially owned by the Crown. On 29 June 2016, the Crown entered into a sale and purchase agreement with the Trust. On 17 June 2017, an agent for the Crown entered into a periodic tenancy agreement with the tenant.
On 09 October 2018, the parties to the sale and purchase agreement varied the terms to include a condition that the transfer was subject to two existing tenancies: that of [the Tenant], and another tenant who has since vacated. The settlement conditions were completed, and on 03 September 2024, legal ownership of the property, including the [ Tenant’s] tenancy, was transferred to the Trust.
Under section 2 of the Act, the Trust became the tenant’s landlord and entitled to exercise rights under the agreement and the Act. This has been explained in writing to [ the Tenant], who does not appear to accept the Trust’s standing as landlord.
As the Tribunal noted, the 42-day notice was invalid. The Trust had attempted to rely on the provision in section 51(2)(b) of the Act, which provides the landlord may terminate a tenancy with 42 days’ notice where the owner is required, under an unconditional agreement for the sale and purchase of the premises, to give the purchaser vacant possession.
[ Trustee] stated the Trust believed that upon settlement they were to have vacant possession. However, this position appears inconsistent with the variation of 09 October 2018, which provided that the Trust was to have vacant possession subject to the existing tenancy of [ the Tenant] . Perhaps more relevant is the fact that the provision in section 51(2)(b) cannot apply because the Trust, as the new owner, is not party to an agreement for sale and purchase with a third party. Law
Section 65 of the Act provides: 65 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) of this section 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 onus of proving this claim for possession rests with the applicant. The standard of proof required is on the balance of probabilities. In this case the applicant must establish, more likely than not, that the grounds on which the order for possession is sought in fact exist.
To make an order for possession the Tribunal must therefore be satisfied that: a. The premises are residential. b. The applicant is entitled to possession of the premises. c. The person against who the order is sought is in possession of the premises is either: i. A trespasser, or ii. A squatter, or iii. Does not have a right to occupy granted by a person with lawful authority to grant that right.
Residential premises are defined in section 2(1) of the Act as any premises used or intended to be used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence, whether or not the occupation or intended occupation for residential purposes is or would be unlawful.
“Squatter” and “Trespasser” are not defined in the Act. In Chuan Wu and Theta Management Ltd v Body Corporate 366611 [2014] SC 137 the Court stated “Trespass to land is an unjustified direct interference with land in the possession of another.
A squatter is someone who occupies property or land when they have no legal right to do so. In McPhail v Persons Unknown [ 1973] 3 All ER 393 at 395 the Court held that a squatter “was one who, without any colour of right, enters on an unoccupied house or land, intending to stay there as long as they can”. Analysis – decision
There is no question that the property are residential premises, and that following settlement on 03 September 2024, the Trust became the legal owner and landlord entitled to exercise their rights to terminate [ the Tenant’s] tenancy. It is equally clear that until [ the Tenant’s] tenancy is lawfully terminated, under the provisions of the Act, he retains a legal right of occupation. He cannot therefore be considered a trespasser, squatter, or someone who does not have legal authority to reside at the property.
Accordingly, the landlord’s application to evict [ the Tenant] is dismissed.
As the previous Adjudicator noted, both parties are invited to seek independent legal advice regarding their respective rights and obligations under the Act. Name suppression.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
Although the tenant did not appear, they have been wholly successful. Assertions have been made concerning the tenants conduct, but these do not justify publication. I therefore order suppression of the tenant’s name and the address of the property.
Section 95A (4) of the Act allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.
While the facts and reasoning in this decision may be in the public interest, that interest does not necessarily extend to naming the landlord. Further, I am satisfied that in these circumstances the publication of the landlord’s name will inevitably reveal the identity of the tenant. Accordingly, the Tribunal also orders suppression of both the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the tenant’s and landlord’s name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed.

Reasons

[Trustees for the Trust] appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant.
The landlord seeks an order for the eviction of [ Tenant] on the basis that he is a squatter and has no lawful right of occupation under section 65 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
On 29 May 2025, the landlord filed an application for termination of the tenancy for rent arrears and anti-social behaviour. The landlord also sought an order for possession following the issue of a 42 day notice to terminate the tenancy.
On 10 June 2025, the application was scheduled for remote hearing on 17 June 2025. The trustees appeared for the landlord. There was no appearance by the tenant. The Tribunal dismissed the claims. In its decision, the Adjudicator suggested that the parties seek advice as to their rights and obligations under the agreement and the Act. While explaining that the Tribunal could not provide legal advice, the Tribunal provided a summary to assist the parties, including reference to the reintroduction of 90 day no-cause terminations on 30 January 2025.
The landlord state that they have attempted to communicate with the tenant but have been verbally threatened with assault. The landlord states that they have attempted to have the tenant trespassed, and that Police advised them to seek an eviction order.
On 19 June 2025, the landlord filed an application to evict the tenant under section 65 of the Act claiming that he was a squatter and had no lawful right of occupation.
The property is a three-bedroom house on the grounds of a decommissioned school. The property and surrounding land were initially owned by the Crown. On 29 June 2016, the Crown entered into a sale and purchase agreement with the Trust. On 17 June 2017, an agent for the Crown entered into a periodic tenancy agreement with the tenant.
On 09 October 2018, the parties to the sale and purchase agreement varied the terms to include a condition that the transfer was subject to two existing tenancies: that of [the Tenant], and another tenant who has since vacated. The settlement conditions were completed, and on 03 September 2024, legal ownership of the property, including the [ Tenant’s] tenancy, was transferred to the Trust.
Under section 2 of the Act, the Trust became the tenant’s landlord and entitled to exercise rights under the agreement and the Act. This has been explained in writing to [ the Tenant], who does not appear to accept the Trust’s standing as landlord.
As the Tribunal noted, the 42-day notice was invalid. The Trust had attempted to rely on the provision in section 51(2)(b) of the Act, which provides the landlord may terminate a tenancy with 42 days’ notice where the owner is required, under an unconditional agreement for the sale and purchase of the premises, to give the purchaser vacant possession.
[ Trustee] stated the Trust believed that upon settlement they were to have vacant possession. However, this position appears inconsistent with the variation of 09 October 2018, which provided that the Trust was to have vacant possession subject to the existing tenancy of [ the Tenant] . Perhaps more relevant is the fact that the provision in section 51(2)(b) cannot apply because the Trust, as the new owner, is not party to an agreement for sale and purchase with a third party. Law
Section 65 of the Act provides: 65 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) of this section 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 onus of proving this claim for possession rests with the applicant. The standard of proof required is on the balance of probabilities. In this case the applicant must establish, more likely than not, that the grounds on which the order for possession is sought in fact exist.
To make an order for possession the Tribunal must therefore be satisfied that: a. The premises are residential. b. The applicant is entitled to possession of the premises. c. The person against who the order is sought is in possession of the premises is either: i. A trespasser, or ii. A squatter, or iii. Does not have a right to occupy granted by a person with lawful authority to grant that right.
Residential premises are defined in section 2(1) of the Act as any premises used or intended to be used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence, whether or not the occupation or intended occupation for residential purposes is or would be unlawful.
“Squatter” and “Trespasser” are not defined in the Act. In Chuan Wu and Theta Management Ltd v Body Corporate 366611 [2014] SC 137 the Court stated “Trespass to land is an unjustified direct interference with land in the possession of another.
A squatter is someone who occupies property or land when they have no legal right to do so. In McPhail v Persons Unknown [ 1973] 3 All ER 393 at 395 the Court held that a squatter “was one who, without any colour of right, enters on an unoccupied house or land, intending to stay there as long as they can”. Analysis – decision
There is no question that the property are residential premises, and that following settlement on 03 September 2024, the Trust became the legal owner and landlord entitled to exercise their rights to terminate [ the Tenant’s] tenancy. It is equally clear that until [ the Tenant’s] tenancy is lawfully terminated, under the provisions of the Act, he retains a legal right of occupation. He cannot therefore be considered a trespasser, squatter, or someone who does not have legal authority to reside at the property.
Accordingly, the landlord’s application to evict [ the Tenant] is dismissed.
As the previous Adjudicator noted, both parties are invited to seek independent legal advice regarding their respective rights and obligations under the Act. Name suppression.
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
Although the tenant did not appear, they have been wholly successful. Assertions have been made concerning the tenants conduct, but these do not justify publication. I therefore order suppression of the tenant’s name and the address of the property.
Section 95A (4) of the Act allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.
While the facts and reasoning in this decision may be in the public interest, that interest does not necessarily extend to naming the landlord. Further, I am satisfied that in these circumstances the publication of the landlord’s name will inevitably reveal the identity of the tenant. Accordingly, the Tribunal also orders suppression of both the landlord’s name and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5293260 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5293260 — Rent arrears

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