What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5316139 about?

The tribunal order states: [The party] is granted possession of the premises at 587 Campbell

How much money was awarded in case 5316139?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5316139?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5316139?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12498848-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5316139 about?

The tribunal order states: [The party] is granted possession of the premises at 587 Campbell

How much money was awarded in case 5316139?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5316139?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5316139?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12498848-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

587 Campbell Road, Bunnythorpe, RD 11, Palmerston Tenancy Tribunal Case 5316139 — Tenancy dispute

Order

[The party] is granted possession of the premises at 587 Campbell Road, Bunnythorpe, RD 11, Palmerston North 4481 immediately.

Reasons

The applicant attended the hearing.
The respondent did not attend the hearing. Late in the morning she applied for an adjournment on the basis that she was unwell. In the absence of any supporting evidence, her request was declined and the hearing proceeded as scheduled.
The landlord has applied for possession of the premises under section 65 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) which 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. [emphasis added]
Section 65 RTA was considered by the High Court in Sergeant v Nigro and Tapsell [2019] NZHC 328. The Court held that there are three conditions which must be met before an order can be made: a. The premises must be residential premises. b. The applicant is entitled to possession. c. Another person or persons are in possession as squatters, trespassers or otherwise than pursuant to any right of occupation granted by a person having lawful authority to do so.
If these three elements are established, then the Tribunal must make a possession order.
The landlord gave evidence confirming that the premises are residential.
It remains to consider whether the applicants are entitled to possession and whether the respondent has a right of occupation.
The applicant is the registered proprietor as evidenced by the copy of Record of Title WN17A/1222 submitted in evidence by the applicant. The registered proprietor of a property is entitled to it possession.
The applicant gave evidence that the respondent occupied the property pursuant to an informal licence to occupy and that this has been cancelled by the applicant by letter dated 28 May 2025. The respondent allowed the respondent further time to vacate the property. These dates have now passed.
The applicant confirmed at the hearing that the licence had been cancelled.
As the applicant is the only person lawfully capable of granting the respondent a right of occupation and she has cancelled that right, she is entitled to possession.
The respondent has indicated in correspondence with the applicant that she has claims against the property at law and/or equity. The High Court in Sergeant v Nigro and Tapsell confirmed at [106]: “... the Tribunal cannot consider claims made by the appellant in another proceeding when deciding if the applicant for an order for possession has proven the pre-condition for an order under s 65.”
The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider the respondent’s claims against the property and is required to make a possession order under section 65 RTA if the three conditions are met. On the evidence before the Tribunal, the applicant has persuaded the Tribunal on the balance of probabilities that the three conditions have been met and so it is required make the possession order sought.

Reasons

The applicant attended the hearing.

The respondent did not attend the hearing. Late in the morning she applied for an adjournment on the basis that she was unwell. In the absence of any supporting evidence, her request was declined and the hearing proceeded as scheduled.

The landlord has applied for possession of the premises under section 65 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) which 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. [emphasis added]

Section 65 RTA was considered by the High Court in Sergeant v Nigro and Tapsell [2019] NZHC 328. The Court held that there are three conditions which must be met before an order can be made: a. The premises must be residential premises. b. The applicant is entitled to possession. c. Another person or persons are in possession as squatters, trespassers or otherwise than pursuant to any right of occupation granted by a person having lawful authority to do so.

If these three elements are established, then the Tribunal must make a possession order.

The landlord gave evidence confirming that the premises are residential.

It remains to consider whether the applicants are entitled to possession and whether the respondent has a right of occupation.

The applicant is the registered proprietor as evidenced by the copy of Record of Title WN17A/1222 submitted in evidence by the applicant. The registered proprietor of a property is entitled to it possession.

The applicant gave evidence that the respondent occupied the property pursuant to an informal licence to occupy and that this has been cancelled by the applicant by letter dated 28 May 2025. The respondent allowed the respondent further time to vacate the property. These dates have now passed.

The applicant confirmed at the hearing that the licence had been cancelled.

As the applicant is the only person lawfully capable of granting the respondent a right of occupation and she has cancelled that right, she is entitled to possession.

The respondent has indicated in correspondence with the applicant that she has claims against the property at law and/or equity. The High Court in Sergeant v Nigro and Tapsell confirmed at [106]: “... the Tribunal cannot consider claims made by the appellant in another proceeding when deciding if the applicant for an order for possession has proven the pre-condition for an order under s 65.”

The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider the respondent’s claims against the property and is required to make a possession order under section 65 RTA if the three conditions are met. On the evidence before the Tribunal, the applicant has persuaded the Tribunal on the balance of probabilities that the three conditions have been met and so it is required make the possession order sought.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5316139 — Tenancy dispute at 587 Campbell Road, Bunnythorpe, RD 11, Palmerston

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5316139 — Tenancy dispute at 587 Campbell Road, Bunnythorpe, RD 11, Palmerston

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