What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5304016 about?

The tribunal order states: The application to adjourn is declined.

How much money was awarded in case 5304016?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5304016?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5304016?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12792901-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5304016 about?

The tribunal order states: The application to adjourn is declined.

How much money was awarded in case 5304016?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5304016?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5304016?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12792901-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

73 Watkins Road, Cambridge, Cambridge 3434 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5304016 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application to adjourn is declined.
[The landlord/s] is granted possession of the premises at 73 Watkins Road, Cambridge, Cambridge 3434 at 6pm on Friday 5 December 2025.
The landlord has applied for possession of the premises following the termination of the tenancy.
The tenancy ended on 12 May 2025. The application for a possession order was made on 19 July which is less than 90 days after the end of the tenancy. The requirements of section 64(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 are satisfied.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via video conference
Mr X attended the hearing representing the landlord.
Mr X attended the hearing representing the tenant. Introduction
The landlord has applied for a possession order. The application follows an earlier Tribunal decision dated 11 July 2025 (Tribunal Ref: 5196353), in which the tenant unsuccessfully applied for an order declaring the 90-day termination notice issued on 3 February 2025 retaliatory.
The Tribunal found that the termination notice met all legal requirements under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), was not retaliatory and that the tenancy validly ended on 12 May 2025.
The Tribunal however declined to make a possession order noting in the order that no application for a possession order had been made.
On 14 July 2025, the tenant filed a Notice of Appeal in the District Court challenging the determination that the 90-day notice was enforceable. The tenant submitting (in summary) that the Tribunal was wrong to find that the notice was not retaliatory.
On 31 July 2025 the Tribunal adjourned the tenant’s application for a possession order, despite the landlord’s objecting to the further delay that would result.
The adjournment was granted as it was considered that was the appropriate course of action so that the District Court could first determine the appeal.
The District Court dismissed the appeal on 12 November 2025 as the tenant had failed to appear at a “call over” or preliminary hearing that was scheduled that morning.
The tenant has now filed a judicial review of the District Court’s decision with the High Court seeking to overturn the District Court’s decision dismissing the appeal.
The tenant now seeks a further adjournment from the Tribunal until the High Court has considered the judicial review. Alternatively, the tenant requests that if the Tribunal declines the adjournment and issues the possession order it delays the possession date for at least 5 days to allow time for the respondent to file a stay of execution in the High Court. Mr Young said that the respondent has requested the High Court deal with the judicial review “on the papers” and that therefore he anticipates a speedy resolution.
[The landlord] objects to the adjournment.
While at the commencement of the hearing he offered to settle the matter on the basis that the parties agree that the tenancy will end on an agreed date (he proposed 27 February 2026) [the tenant] said he had no instructions to agree to the tenancy ending by agreement.
Mr X for the tenant said that if a date could not be agreed then the landlord’s request remains for an immediate or at least relatively speedy possession order.
The first issue is therefore whether it is appropriate to proceed with the landlord’s application for possession until the appellant courts have considered the appeal/judicial review.
[The landlord] states that the landlord is seeking possession of the property and views the tenant’s appeal and now judicial review as further delaying tactics with respect to an issue that has now taken far too long to resolve.
He emphasised that the Tribunal had already ruled the 90-day notice was lawful and not retaliatory, and the landlord wanted that decision enforced without further delay. He expressed frustration at what he described as baseless attempts by the tenant to frustrate and delay enforcement.
Mr X for the landlord responded by saying that the tenant had a lawful right to appeal and now apply for the judicial review of the decision dismissing the appeal and that the District and High Court processes should be respected. He said natural justice required that the Court process should be permitted to run their course before the Tribunal considers whether the possession order must be issued. Finding
I decline the application to adjourn. Instead, the possession order is made 7 days out which will enable the respondent to apply to the High Court for a stay of enforcement pending resolution of the matters now before it.
The long title to the RTA includes as part of the philosophy of the Act, expeditious determination of disputes. The Tribunal must adopt an approach which protects that philosophy.
Section 85 elaborates on the philosophy, requiring jurisdiction to be applied in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes.
The Tribunal is thus charged with resolving issues in both an expeditious and fair manner.
As noted at the hearing today the 90 day notice could be issued again without reason. Even if the tenant’s appeal is successful and the February notice is set aside as retaliatory, it is well established law that the retaliatory status would not last in perpetuity.
The 90-day notice was issued in February, which is now nigh on 10 months ago. To allow the adjournment pending resolution of both the District and now High Court determinations would add further and, in my view, unreasonable delay to the resolution of this dispute.
The landlord notes that the High Court has the authority to stay execution of the possession order, on whatever terms it deems reasonable. That is in my view the appropriate course of action.
The only remaining issue is whether Sections 60 and 64 apply to prevent the issuing of the possession order.
Section 64 (2) provides that no possession order may be made more than 90 days after the date of termination of the tenancy applies.
Section 60 of the RTA relates to tenants remaining in possession of the premises. Subsection 2 states: “If the landlord permits the tenant to remain in the premises for more than 90 days after the tenancy has terminated or has been terminated, without obtaining a possession order, or for more than 90 days after obtaining a possession order, the landlord shall be deemed to have granted, and the tenant shall be deemed to have accepted, as from the date on which that period of 90 days expired, a periodic tenancy of the premises on the same terms and conditions as pertained to the original tenancy immediately before its termination”.
In this case, the landlord applied to have the tenant evicted within that required 90-day period. The landlord has not done or said anything whatsoever that could lead to a finding that the landlord has “permitted the tenants to remain in possession”. While the landlord was prepared to settle on an agreed date for the tenancy to end, that was not an option the landlord agreed to. The concession with dates was made as the landlord acknowledges the
The landlord began by filing the application for a possession order soon after the Tribunal ruled the 90-day notice was valid and enforceable and has objected to the on-going delays with enforcement of that order since that time.
This is not a case where the tenant has established that section 60(2) applied, so that the tenancy is deemed to have continued.
The parties’ requests for name suppression are approved. The public interest in publishing both parties’ names in this order is negligible, at least while the appeal/application for judicial review remain unresolved. It is noted that the Tribunal’s decision to publish the tenant’s name is one of the issues that the District Court has been asked to consider.

Order

The application to adjourn is declined.

[The landlord/s] is granted possession of the premises at 73 Watkins Road, Cambridge, Cambridge 3434 at 6pm on Friday 5 December 2025.

The landlord has applied for possession of the premises following the termination of the tenancy.

The tenancy ended on 12 May 2025. The application for a possession order was made on 19 July which is less than 90 days after the end of the tenancy. The requirements of section 64(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 are satisfied.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via video conference

Mr X attended the hearing representing the landlord.

Mr X attended the hearing representing the tenant. Introduction

The landlord has applied for a possession order. The application follows an earlier Tribunal decision dated 11 July 2025 (Tribunal Ref: 5196353), in which the tenant unsuccessfully applied for an order declaring the 90-day termination notice issued on 3 February 2025 retaliatory.

The Tribunal found that the termination notice met all legal requirements under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”), was not retaliatory and that the tenancy validly ended on 12 May 2025.

The Tribunal however declined to make a possession order noting in the order that no application for a possession order had been made.

On 14 July 2025, the tenant filed a Notice of Appeal in the District Court challenging the determination that the 90-day notice was enforceable. The tenant submitting (in summary) that the Tribunal was wrong to find that the notice was not retaliatory.

On 31 July 2025 the Tribunal adjourned the tenant’s application for a possession order, despite the landlord’s objecting to the further delay that would result.

The adjournment was granted as it was considered that was the appropriate course of action so that the District Court could first determine the appeal.

The District Court dismissed the appeal on 12 November 2025 as the tenant had failed to appear at a “call over” or preliminary hearing that was scheduled that morning.

The tenant has now filed a judicial review of the District Court’s decision with the High Court seeking to overturn the District Court’s decision dismissing the appeal.

The tenant now seeks a further adjournment from the Tribunal until the High Court has considered the judicial review. Alternatively, the tenant requests that if the Tribunal declines the adjournment and issues the possession order it delays the possession date for at least 5 days to allow time for the respondent to file a stay of execution in the High Court. Mr Young said that the respondent has requested the High Court deal with the judicial review “on the papers” and that therefore he anticipates a speedy resolution.

[The landlord] objects to the adjournment.

While at the commencement of the hearing he offered to settle the matter on the basis that the parties agree that the tenancy will end on an agreed date (he proposed 27 February 2026) [the tenant] said he had no instructions to agree to the tenancy ending by agreement.

Mr X for the tenant said that if a date could not be agreed then the landlord’s request remains for an immediate or at least relatively speedy possession order.

The first issue is therefore whether it is appropriate to proceed with the landlord’s application for possession until the appellant courts have considered the appeal/judicial review.

[The landlord] states that the landlord is seeking possession of the property and views the tenant’s appeal and now judicial review as further delaying tactics with respect to an issue that has now taken far too long to resolve.

He emphasised that the Tribunal had already ruled the 90-day notice was lawful and not retaliatory, and the landlord wanted that decision enforced without further delay. He expressed frustration at what he described as baseless attempts by the tenant to frustrate and delay enforcement.

Mr X for the landlord responded by saying that the tenant had a lawful right to appeal and now apply for the judicial review of the decision dismissing the appeal and that the District and High Court processes should be respected. He said natural justice required that the Court process should be permitted to run their course before the Tribunal considers whether the possession order must be issued. Finding

I decline the application to adjourn. Instead, the possession order is made 7 days out which will enable the respondent to apply to the High Court for a stay of enforcement pending resolution of the matters now before it.

The long title to the RTA includes as part of the philosophy of the Act, expeditious determination of disputes. The Tribunal must adopt an approach which protects that philosophy.

Section 85 elaborates on the philosophy, requiring jurisdiction to be applied in a manner that is most likely to ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes.

The Tribunal is thus charged with resolving issues in both an expeditious and fair manner.

As noted at the hearing today the 90 day notice could be issued again without reason. Even if the tenant’s appeal is successful and the February notice is set aside as retaliatory, it is well established law that the retaliatory status would not last in perpetuity.

The 90-day notice was issued in February, which is now nigh on 10 months ago. To allow the adjournment pending resolution of both the District and now High Court determinations would add further and, in my view, unreasonable delay to the resolution of this dispute.

The landlord notes that the High Court has the authority to stay execution of the possession order, on whatever terms it deems reasonable. That is in my view the appropriate course of action.

The only remaining issue is whether Sections 60 and 64 apply to prevent the issuing of the possession order.

Section 64 (2) provides that no possession order may be made more than 90 days after the date of termination of the tenancy applies.

Section 60 of the RTA relates to tenants remaining in possession of the premises. Subsection 2 states: “If the landlord permits the tenant to remain in the premises for more than 90 days after the tenancy has terminated or has been terminated, without obtaining a possession order, or for more than 90 days after obtaining a possession order, the landlord shall be deemed to have granted, and the tenant shall be deemed to have accepted, as from the date on which that period of 90 days expired, a periodic tenancy of the premises on the same terms and conditions as pertained to the original tenancy immediately before its termination”.

In this case, the landlord applied to have the tenant evicted within that required 90-day period. The landlord has not done or said anything whatsoever that could lead to a finding that the landlord has “permitted the tenants to remain in possession”. While the landlord was prepared to settle on an agreed date for the tenancy to end, that was not an option the landlord agreed to. The concession with dates was made as the landlord acknowledges the

The landlord began by filing the application for a possession order soon after the Tribunal ruled the 90-day notice was valid and enforceable and has objected to the on-going delays with enforcement of that order since that time.

This is not a case where the tenant has established that section 60(2) applied, so that the tenancy is deemed to have continued.

The parties’ requests for name suppression are approved. The public interest in publishing both parties’ names in this order is negligible, at least while the appeal/application for judicial review remain unresolved. It is noted that the Tribunal’s decision to publish the tenant’s name is one of the issues that the District Court has been asked to consider.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5304016 — Tenancy dispute at 73 Watkins Road, Cambridge, Cambridge 3434

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5304016 — Tenancy dispute at 73 Watkins Road, Cambridge, Cambridge 3434

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