What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5298371 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the name and identifying details of both

How much money was awarded in case 5298371?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5298371?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5298371?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12614769-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5298371 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the name and identifying details of both

How much money was awarded in case 5298371?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5298371?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5298371?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12614769-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5298371 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the name and identifying details of both parties.
Possession of the premises at [the premises] is granted to the Applicant immediately.

Reasons

Background

On 8 March 2024 the Tribunal issued an order granting possession of the premises to the Applicant on the grounds that the Respondent was a squatter. That Order was not enforced.
The Applicant then filed this application, seeking possession of the premises. On 9 July 2025 the Applicant and Respondent were served with a notice of hearing for a hearing to be conducted by phone on 18 July 2025. Tribunal records show that the notice of hearing and accompanying documents were served on the Respondent by post and at her e-mail address for service.
The Respondent did not attend that hearing. The adjudicator tried to call the Respondent, without success. On 18 July 2025 the Tribunal issued an order granting possession to the Applicant confirming the Respondent remained as a squatter and was not entitled to possession.
That order contained an error. It named the Applicant’s lawyer as the Applicant. The Tribunal was made aware of this error, and on 13 October 2025, the Tribunal reissued its decision, with the correct parties identified. In this order, I expressly identify the Applicant as a party, and make this order in her favour.
On 15 October 2025, the Applicant sought to enforce that possession order and the Respondent was served with an eviction notice.
On 17 October 2025, the Respondent applied for a rehearing and stay of the Tribunal’s decision on the grounds that she was not informed or made aware of the Tribunal hearing prior to it taking place and did not receive any correspondence relating to it or that she was required to attend. She wanted to present her side of the story.
The Respondent was then evicted from the property by the bailiff and police on Monday 20 October 2025.
On 21 October 2025 the adjudicator issued an order granting a rehearing, but no stay of proceedings was granted. It seems that the adjudicator was not aware of the eviction.
Before issuing this decision, I issued a Direction giving the parties the opportunity to provide written submissions on my proposal to issue a decision on the papers. The Applicant, through her lawyer, responded. The Respondent did not. My direction was sent to the Respondents email address, which was the address for service she gave when applying for the rehearing. My decision
This is a decision on the papers. 1 I have decided the matter on the papers because the issue that requires determination in this application – whether the Applicant is entitled to possession of the premises – is now moot.
That is because the Respondent has been lawfully evicted and is no longer an occupier or otherwise in possession. That eviction cannot be reversed. The Tribunal had granted possession to the Applicant, no stay of proceedings had been granted and the Applicant has acted lawfully in pursuing the eviction. The Applicant therefore lawfully has the possession that they sought.
Even if there was merit in the Respondent’s arguments that she has a right of occupation – and on that point I make no finding - there is little I can do. Possession has been granted and taken, so the claim is at an end.
If the Respondent considers that she has a right to occupation or possession of the premises, she will need to bring her own application to the Tribunal seeking a possession order. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 91AB Name suppression
I suppress the name and identifying details of the Applicant. She has been wholly successful. The adjudicator who granted the rehearing suppressed the Respondent’s details. I feel bound by that decision, so I also suppress the Respondent’s details.

Reasons

Background

On 8 March 2024 the Tribunal issued an order granting possession of the premises to the Applicant on the grounds that the Respondent was a squatter. That Order was not enforced.

The Applicant then filed this application, seeking possession of the premises. On 9 July 2025 the Applicant and Respondent were served with a notice of hearing for a hearing to be conducted by phone on 18 July 2025. Tribunal records show that the notice of hearing and accompanying documents were served on the Respondent by post and at her e-mail address for service.

The Respondent did not attend that hearing. The adjudicator tried to call the Respondent, without success. On 18 July 2025 the Tribunal issued an order granting possession to the Applicant confirming the Respondent remained as a squatter and was not entitled to possession.

That order contained an error. It named the Applicant’s lawyer as the Applicant. The Tribunal was made aware of this error, and on 13 October 2025, the Tribunal reissued its decision, with the correct parties identified. In this order, I expressly identify the Applicant as a party, and make this order in her favour.

On 15 October 2025, the Applicant sought to enforce that possession order and the Respondent was served with an eviction notice.

On 17 October 2025, the Respondent applied for a rehearing and stay of the Tribunal’s decision on the grounds that she was not informed or made aware of the Tribunal hearing prior to it taking place and did not receive any correspondence relating to it or that she was required to attend. She wanted to present her side of the story.

The Respondent was then evicted from the property by the bailiff and police on Monday 20 October 2025.

On 21 October 2025 the adjudicator issued an order granting a rehearing, but no stay of proceedings was granted. It seems that the adjudicator was not aware of the eviction.

Before issuing this decision, I issued a Direction giving the parties the opportunity to provide written submissions on my proposal to issue a decision on the papers. The Applicant, through her lawyer, responded. The Respondent did not. My direction was sent to the Respondents email address, which was the address for service she gave when applying for the rehearing. My decision

This is a decision on the papers. 1 I have decided the matter on the papers because the issue that requires determination in this application – whether the Applicant is entitled to possession of the premises – is now moot.

That is because the Respondent has been lawfully evicted and is no longer an occupier or otherwise in possession. That eviction cannot be reversed. The Tribunal had granted possession to the Applicant, no stay of proceedings had been granted and the Applicant has acted lawfully in pursuing the eviction. The Applicant therefore lawfully has the possession that they sought.

Even if there was merit in the Respondent’s arguments that she has a right of occupation – and on that point I make no finding - there is little I can do. Possession has been granted and taken, so the claim is at an end.

If the Respondent considers that she has a right to occupation or possession of the premises, she will need to bring her own application to the Tribunal seeking a possession order. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 91AB Name suppression

I suppress the name and identifying details of the Applicant. She has been wholly successful. The adjudicator who granted the rehearing suppressed the Respondent’s details. I feel bound by that decision, so I also suppress the Respondent’s details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5298371 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5298371 — 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