What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5323096 about?

The tribunal order states: [The party] is granted possession of the premises at 1

How much money was awarded in case 5323096?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5323096?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5323096?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12488363-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5323096 about?

The tribunal order states: [The party] is granted possession of the premises at 1

How much money was awarded in case 5323096?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5323096?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5323096?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12488363-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Te Poi, Matamata Tenancy Tribunal Case 5323096 — Tenancy dispute

Order

[The party] is granted possession of the premises at 1 Papatangi Road, Te Poi, Matamata 3473, immediately.

Reasons

Mr McIntyre attended the hearing. The other party did not appear.
Mr McIntyre has applied for possession of his property at 1 Papatangi Road, Te Poi, Matamata, under section 65(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The legal description of the land is, “Whaiti Kuranui 6C2C West B1 Block” on the Record of Title. [The party] as Administrator is noted as the registered owner.
On 6 September 2025, Tenancy Services attempted to serve this application on the respondent at the above address. The documents were served on a male who identified himself as ‘Lawrence’. He stated that [The party] had moved to Hamilton around 4 months prior. Lawrence stated that he was living on free land and he did not accept the papers which were left at his feet.
I find this is an appropriate case to dispense with service under section 91B RTA and proceed as if the notice or other document had been served on the party in accordance with the RTA. Background summary
Mr McIntyre says this is family land where he grew up, and he has been the registered owner for the last 12-15 years. The dwelling house is no longer on the land. At the start of 2025, Mr McIntyre says he was informed that some people have moved onto the land. When he went to visit, he found people living in a tent and they had built a makeshift shack. Mr McIntyre spoke with local Police and a Trespass notice was served on the occupants on 12 May 2025.
Despite this, some occupants remain and are living in insanitary conditions. This is particularly upsetting for Mr McIntyre and his whānau as there is an urupā for parents and grandparents on the land. Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to make an order for possession under section 65

RTA?

Section 65 RTA provides that 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.
It is clear from the wording of section 65 that the exercise of the jurisdiction under that section does not involve a discretion and upon satisfaction of the primary jurisdictional requirements it is mandatory that the Tenancy Tribunal make a possession order. 1
The High Court 2 has held that there are three conditions which have to be met before an order can be made under section 65: (a) The premises the subject of the application are residential premises. (b) The applicant for possession is entitled to possession of those premises. (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. 1 Sergeant v Nigro & Tapsell, [2019] NZHC 328 at [25]. 2 Ibid at [74].
Section 2 of the RTA defines residential premises as, “any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence, whether or not the occupation or intended occupation for residential premises is or would be unlawful.”
“Premises” includes: (a) any part of any premises; and (b) any land and appurtenances, other than facilities; and (c) any mobile home, caravan, or other means of shelter placed or erected upon any land and intended for occupation on that land.
I find that the land, and any tent, makeshift shack, or other structure that the occupiers have erected on the land, clearly fall within the broad definition of premises.
"Residential premises" means premises used or intended for occupation as a place of residence. I am satisfied that the premises are residential premises because they are intended as the place of residence of the occupiers.
I therefore find that Mr McIntyre, as legal owner, is entitled to possession of the premises at 1 Papatangi Road, Te Poi, Matamata 3473.
As the current occupants have no lawful right to occupy the premises, all elements of section 65 RTA have been satisfied and a possession order is granted.

Order

[The party] is granted possession of the premises at 1 Papatangi Road, Te Poi, Matamata 3473, immediately.

Reasons

Mr McIntyre attended the hearing. The other party did not appear.
Mr McIntyre has applied for possession of his property at 1 Papatangi Road, Te Poi, Matamata, under section 65(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The legal description of the land is, “Whaiti Kuranui 6C2C West B1 Block” on the Record of Title. [The party] as Administrator is noted as the registered owner.
On 6 September 2025, Tenancy Services attempted to serve this application on the respondent at the above address. The documents were served on a male who identified himself as ‘Lawrence’. He stated that [The party] had moved to Hamilton around 4 months prior. Lawrence stated that he was living on free land and he did not accept the papers which were left at his feet.
I find this is an appropriate case to dispense with service under section 91B RTA and proceed as if the notice or other document had been served on the party in accordance with the RTA. Background summary
Mr McIntyre says this is family land where he grew up, and he has been the registered owner for the last 12-15 years. The dwelling house is no longer on the land. At the start of 2025, Mr McIntyre says he was informed that some people have moved onto the land. When he went to visit, he found people living in a tent and they had built a makeshift shack. Mr McIntyre spoke with local Police and a Trespass notice was served on the occupants on 12 May 2025.
Despite this, some occupants remain and are living in insanitary conditions. This is particularly upsetting for Mr McIntyre and his whānau as there is an urupā for parents and grandparents on the land. Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to make an order for possession under section 65

RTA?

Section 65 RTA provides that 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.
It is clear from the wording of section 65 that the exercise of the jurisdiction under that section does not involve a discretion and upon satisfaction of the primary jurisdictional requirements it is mandatory that the Tenancy Tribunal make a possession order. 1
The High Court 2 has held that there are three conditions which have to be met before an order can be made under section 65: (a) The premises the subject of the application are residential premises. (b) The applicant for possession is entitled to possession of those premises. (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. 1 Sergeant v Nigro & Tapsell, [2019] NZHC 328 at [25]. 2 Ibid at [74].
Section 2 of the RTA defines residential premises as, “any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence, whether or not the occupation or intended occupation for residential premises is or would be unlawful.”
“Premises” includes: (a) any part of any premises; and (b) any land and appurtenances, other than facilities; and (c) any mobile home, caravan, or other means of shelter placed or erected upon any land and intended for occupation on that land.
I find that the land, and any tent, makeshift shack, or other structure that the occupiers have erected on the land, clearly fall within the broad definition of premises.
"Residential premises" means premises used or intended for occupation as a place of residence. I am satisfied that the premises are residential premises because they are intended as the place of residence of the occupiers.
I therefore find that Mr McIntyre, as legal owner, is entitled to possession of the premises at 1 Papatangi Road, Te Poi, Matamata 3473.
As the current occupants have no lawful right to occupy the premises, all elements of section 65 RTA have been satisfied and a possession order is granted.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5323096 — Tenancy dispute in Te Poi, Matamata

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5323096 — Tenancy dispute in Te Poi, Matamata

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

RTA?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

RTA?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions