Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5324301 — Unit Titles
Decided 13 Jan 2026 · Published 13 Jan 2026 · Application 5324301
- Unit Titles
Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Adjudicator
M Pollak
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of both Respondent 1 and 2’s names and identifying details.
- The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider claims made against Respondent 2, as it is not an agent of the landlord or a landlord in its own right. Accordingly, the partial rehearing of application 5324301 and 5319506 is dismissed.
Reasons
- The tenant attended the hearing on 13 January 2026. [name suppressed] appeared for [Respondent 2] [name suppressed appeared for Respondent 1]
- The Tribunal has been asked to determine whether [Respondent 2] is an agent for [Respondent 1] and therefore the tenant’s landlord or one of the tenant’s landlords for the purposes of the tenant’s application 5319506 that was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction . 5324301, 53195062 Background
- On 24 February 2025, the tenant entered into a tenancy agreement with [Respondent 1]. [Respondent 1] is the only landlord named on the tenancy agreement. The Bond Centre holds the bond the name of Mr Radics with [Respondent 1] named as the sole landlord party.
- The property is a unit in an apartment complex managed by a body corporate. The tenancy agreement includes a term that the tenant is bound by the body corporate rules that apply to the tenant’s property. Part 2, General Obligations, states that an owner or tenant of any unit must: “(k) Upon moving into any unit, the new occupier shall sign an agreement with the supplier of water to the body corporate at that time, providing that the supplier is to be the sole provider of metered water to the unit.”
- [Respondent 2] is engaged by the body corporate as sole supplier of all cold and hot water to all the residential units in the complex.
- The tenant and [Respondent 2] enter a contract. [Respondent 2] provides a metering system for hot and cold water to each unit, which is billed monthly to the user directly.
- The tenant was unhappy about not having a choice of his water supplier and with [Respondent 2’s] service or lack thereof. On 4 August 2025, the tenant filed a claim in the Tenancy Tribunal seeking a declaration that [Respondent 2] is an agent of the landlord and therefore liable under the landlord obligation provisions of the RTA.
- On 14 August 2025, the tenant filed another claim against the landlord, arguing that [Respondent 2], as an agent of the landlord, had acted in a manner that interfered with his reasonable peace, comfort, and privacy.
- At the 26 September 2025 jurisdictional hearing, the tenant claimed [Respondent 2] can be defined as an agent of the landlord as they have: “in practice assumed responsibilities of a landlord under the RTA, particularly in relation to water provisioning, associated charges, and maintenance” because it “maintained” the complex’s water delivery system.
- The tenant referred to Landlord v Nathan NZTT 4791777, dated 13 February 2024, in which the Tribunal, when considering an application under section 55A of the RTA (the provision enabling a tenancy to be terminated with notice where a tenant assaults the landlord, owner, or an agent, and has been charged with an offence), found that a contractor performing maintenance on the property on behalf of the landlord was an “agent of the landlord” for the purposes of that RTA provision. I note that this decision is distinguishable in its case facts, which are significantly different to those of this application. In Landlord v Nathan the contractor that assaulted the tenant was held to be an agent, for the purposes of 5324301, 53195063 s55A of the RTA only. Section 55A does not relate to any of the tenant’s claims against [Respondents 1 and 2].
- [Respondent 2] denied being the tenant’s landlord or having ever been engaged as an agent for [Respondent 1] to manage the tenancy.
- [Respondent 2] confirmed: a. It entered a contract with the body corporate as sole supplier of water, gas, water metering, and billing services to the complex; b. It has no contractual relationship with individual unit owners or landlords; c. It contracts to occupiers directly as their hot and cold-water suppliers; d. There is a single water and gas line into the complex. [Respondent 2] holds separate contracts with the gas and water providers, and under its contract with the body corporate it manages the supply and billing of water to the occupiers of the units; e. Each unit has cold and hot water meters that are read by [Respondent 2] and the fixed daily charges( for administration/billing/meter reading, a 24- hour maintenance service, and water from the mains water supply to the individual unit) and water/gas consumption charges are billed directly to the tenant; f. The water delivery infrastructure belongs to the body corporate; g. The body corporate are responsible for maintaining the water delivery infrastructure and contracts [Respondent 2] to assist it to do so, as well as to provide performance guidance to ensure that the body corporate meets its obligations under relevant regulations, citing clause G12 of the Building Regulations 1992, which requires that buildings have an adequate, safe, and sanitary means of supplying water to sanitary fixtures, appliances, and outlets.
- [Respondent 1] confirmed that the landlord did not engage [Respondent 2] to provide the metered water service or to conduct any maintenance of the water delivery system on the landlord’s behalf and that the maintenance is conducted by [Respondent 2] on behalf of the body corporate. [Respondent 2] is therefore the body corporate’s agent and not an agent of the landlord. The landlord has no contractual or legal relationship with [Respondent 2] whatsoever.
- In its 17 October 2025 Order, the Tribunal found: a. [Respondent 2] is not an agent of the landlord under section 2(1) of the Act. b. [Respondent 2] is an independent service provider contracted by the body corporate to supply water. The landlord is not responsible for [Respondent 2’s] conduct as an "agent" under the Act, and [Respondent 2] does not meet the statutory definition of an agent for tenancy purposes. 5324301, 53195064 c. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider claims made against [Respondent 2] as an agent of the landlord or as a landlord in their own right, and they are removed as party.
- The Tribunal dismissed the application made against [Respondent 2] as landlord (NZTT 5319506), and adjourned the claim made against the landlord (NZTT 5324301) to a Case Management Conference.
- On 22 October 2025, the tenant filed an application for a rehearing, submitting that the Tribunal had misstated the evidence regarding whether [Respondent 2] maintained the water supply system. The tenant stated the Tribunal’s decision that [Respondent 2] was not an agent was based on a finding that [Respondent 2] did not maintain the system, when in fact [Respondent 2] does maintain the system. The tenant states that, had he been aware of this error at the time, he would have made submissions on this point during the hearing. He submitted that being unable to do so meant he was unable to properly present his case and that led to an incorrect finding that [Respondent 2] is not a landlord party to the tenant’s tenancy agreement.
- On 24 November 2025, the Tribunal granted the tenant a partial rehearing because the parties agreed that the Tribunal misstated the evidence regarding whether [Respondent 2] maintained the water supply system, and this may or may not have a bearing on the outcome and that misstating of important evidence constitutes a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.
- The Tribunal’s finding that [Respondent 2] is not an agent of the landlord was set aside and is to be heard afresh by me. Is [Respondent 2] the agent of the landlord/the landlord?
- The tenant argues that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear his application 5319506 is supported by precedents found in [2023] NZTT 4406266, 4478401 citing Mumby v Gary Brown Realty Ltd and Ors [2011] DCR 420, which confirms possible personal liability of agents who have not made it contractually clear they act solely as agents.
- The tenant claims that [Respondent 2’s] conduct meets the definition of “agent,” “landlord,” and “any person” under the RTA because it provides maintenance, assumes responsibility for and charges for outgoings, interfered with water supply, interrupted the tenant’s quiet enjoyment and interfered with his peace, comfort, and privacy. Additionally, he says [Respondent 2] entered transactions and made arrangements that contravene the RTA, particularly in relation to s 39(1), under claimed authority of the Body Corporate. Further he claims that the landlord and body corporate are acting in contravention of s 137of the RTA 5324301, 53195065 5324301, 53195066 The Law
- The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear cases between landlords and tenants (and their guarantors (s77(1) RTA), subject to the Limitation Act 2010.
- Section 2(1) of the RTA extends the meaning of both landlord and tenant to include those who act on their behalf. In particular: Landlord ... means the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement; and where appropriate, includes ... (e) an agent of the landlord. Tenant ... means the grantee of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement; and where appropriate, includes ... (e) an agent of the tenant. Agent ...means an agent of [a landlord or tenant] in that person’s capacity as landlord or tenant; and includes an employee of that person in that person’s capacity as landlord or tenant.
- Leading commentaries on the RTA state that “where appropriate” has been taken to mean “in accordance with the principles of the law of agency”: e.g., RTA commentary in Westlaw (RT2.27.01; RT2.4.01)), Residential Tenancies: The Law and Practice (4th Ed), Grinlington), and, District Court authorities to support that position.
- The District Court, when deciding when it is “appropriate” to find an agent to be a landlord, found the mere involvement of an agent in a transaction does not mean that the tenant could bring a claim against an agent – see Edinburgh Realty Ltd v Gray DC Dunedin, TT 1080/97. 1082/97, 8 April 1998: An agent of the landlord advised a tenant that the owner accepted the tenant and received a bond from the tenant. However, before the tenancy started, the owner sold the property and withdrew the property for rent. The agent conveyed this to the tenant. The Tenancy Tribunal found the owner and agent liable for breach of the obligation to ensure that there was no legal impediment to occupation (section 36). However, on appeal, the District Court Judge held that the agent did not become liable for the owner’s breach of contract by merely communicating the owner’s instructions. The agent was not liable.
- Laws of New Zealand, Agency paragraph [134] is consistent with Edinburgh Realty Ltd v Gray and Harcourts Accommodation Centre Ltd v Barker in confirming an agent acting as an intermediary is not personally liable as a party to the contract: [134]. Agent acting solely as representative not liable. An agent who acts purely as an intermediary so as to negative his or her personal liability is not liable as a party to the contract that is brought about between the principal and the third party; the contract is one to which the principal and the third party alone are parties, and they alone may sue or be sued on it. 5324301, 53195067
- The common law of agency confirms the contract is the fundamental factor in determining whether an agent was an intermediary (not liable) or a party to the contract – Laws of New Zealand, Agency paragraph 135: [135] When agent is personally liable. In order that an agent may be regarded as solely an intermediary, thereby incurring no personal liability on a contract made with a third party, the terms in which the agent contracted must show that the agent acted merely as an instrument for the principal and did not contract in a personal capacity. This depends upon the intention of the parties as shown by the construction of the contract as a whole.
- The Tenancy Tribunal found an agent was not a party to the contract and could not make a claim against a tenant – see Harcourts Accommodation Centre Ltd v Barker DC Christchurch, M56/93, TT74/93, 16 March 1993, where a claim was brought in the name of an agent against a tenant: Any liability by the tenant was to the owners. In my view, the primary meaning in the “landlord” definition is appropriate to the commencement of proceedings. In other words, it is not “appropriate” for these purposes to use the inclusive definition of an agent of the landlord. My reasons for reaching this conclusion are: (1) These are judicial proceedings constituted to determine liabilities between parties. Agency has no part in constituting parties in the context of this Act on proceedings brought in accordance with it. (2) The prescribed procedure as to the hearing specifically forbids any party being represented by counsel or a representative without the consent of the other party, unless the monetary limit of exceeded (section 93(2)). Where that monetary limit is not exceeded then the provision could be simply evaded by an agent of the landlord putting him or herself forward as the party (of the landlord sort). A construction of the definition which would permit such an evasion is entirely inappropriate. It is not relevant that in this case the monetary limit would have been exceeded. The principle of construction should be consistent regardless of the amount involved. (3) Where an agent puts himself forward as a party (as an agent whether disclosed or not) there is potential for future problems as to multiple applications on the same or related subject matter, and as to res judicata between the tenant on the one hand and the grantor of the tenancy on the other. In this case the claim was brought by, on the papers, an undisclosed agent and the appeal was brought in the name of the owners of the property. The view to which I came was that the original claim was improperly constituted as to parties and that I had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an order purporting to be made in such proceedings.
- The District Court has held an agent, to sue or be sued, had to be the landlord under the tenancy agreement. In Mumby v Gary Brown Realty Ltd [2011] DCR 420, the tenancy agreement stated the agent’s name as landlord and had the agent’s unqualified signature. The judge held that the agent was liable as landlord 5324301, 53195068 because the agent signed the tenancy agreement as the landlord, without qualification: [31] ... the law is no different for agents acting under the Residential Tenancies Act than agents acting in any other capacity.
- The tenant relies on the precedent of Mumby v Gary Brown Realty Ltd, to support his claim. However, the facts of that case can be distinguished as in Mumby the agent signed the tenancy agreement as landlord without qualification and was liable as landlord, even though the tenants knew that the agent was an agent of overseas landlords. In Mr Radics case, the only landlord named in the tenancy agreement and/or had signed the tenancy agreement, is [Respondent 1]. [Respondent 2] have never been named in the tenancy agreement as an agent or otherwise, have not signed the tenancy agreement and have no relationship with the landlord, contractual or otherwise. In Mumby the tenant could claim and obtain orders against the landlord and the agent, but could not recover against both. In Mr Radics case he can only make claims, obtain orders against and recover against [Respondent 1] as his landlord.
- The incorporation of the body corporate rules into the tenancy agreement does not make [Respondent 2] a landlord party to Mr Radics tenancy. It simply means that the owner of flat 1505, 74 Taranaki Street, Te Aro is required to comply with all body corporate rules and to ensure that all occupants of flat 1505 comply with those rules as part of any tenancy, or licence to occupy, it grants.
- The tenant also relies on Tenant v At Home Realty NZTT 4601989, 4654572, dated 1 November 2023, and Tenant v Koroniadis NZTT 4406266, 4478401, dated 8 June 2023, both of which cite the case of Mumby v Gary Brown Realty Limited and Others [2011] DCR 420. In Mumby, having established that the party concerned was an agent, the Tribunal examined the circumstances, with reference to the common law of agency and section 2(1) of the RTA, where an agent could also be defined as a landlord and therefore a party to proceedings. These decisions are not binding on me and can also be distinguished on their case facts. In Tenant v At Home Realty the agent was a property management company, named in the tenancy agreement, that had been responsible for managing the tenancy for the majority of the tenure of the tenancy. Its breaches of the RTA led to some of the remedies awarded for which it was found to have some liabiity. [Respondent 2] is not a property management company and was not engaged by [Respondent 1] to manage the tenancy on its behalf at any time whatsoever. Unlike this matter, the matter of Tenant v Koroniadis involves a trust and not a company. A trust is not a legal entity that can be sued, unlike a limited liability company that is a legal entity in its own right. The trustees are liable for the conduct of the trust.
- In [2023] NZTT 4406266, 4478401 Tenants v Koroniadis as agent and Koroniadis as Trustees for the Korofam Trust, the Tribunal found it appropriate to include 5324301, 53195069 both Mr Koroniadis and the trustees of Korofam Trust as liable parties, so that the tenants could elect who to enforce the order against should enforcement measures be required, because: a. The tenant’s claim against the landlord is for refund of the bond which was not lodged with the Bond Centre. Ordinarily, an agent working in a property management context would be, or could be, responsible for lodging the bond. Therefore, the failure to lodge the tenants’ bond can fairly be attributed to Mr Koroniadis as the agent, and it is appropriate that he take responsibility for refunding the bond; b. The names of the trustees of Korofam Trust were not disclosed to the tenants, so that the tenants did not know who to sue and could only look to Mr Koroniadis for refund of the bond and any other claims arising from the tenancy; and c. Given that the trustees of Korofam Trust have not all signed the tenancy agreement, there could be some concern about its validity as against all of the trustees, in which case the tenants can only look to Mr Koroniadis for refund of the bond.
- It should be noted that unlike a limited liability company, a trust is not an entity in its own right. Therefore, its trustees are considered to be the landlord and liable for all landlord obligations set out in the RTA. [Respondent 1] is a limited liability company and not a trust. Therefore the case facts in these two matters are significantly different and are distinguishable on those different case facts. Why an agent is found to be liable or not liable is very dependent on the specific case facts of each case. Application of the law to the facts
- The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
- The applicant has failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that [Respondent 2] was the agent of [Respondent 1] and should be considered the landlord or the agent of the landlord because: a. The only landlord named in the tenancy agreement and/or had signed the tenancy agreement, is [Respondent 1]. [Respondent 2] have never been named in the tenancy agreement as an agent or otherwise, have not signed the tenancy agreement and have no relationship with the landlord, contractual or otherwise; b. The tenant has a direct contractual relationship with [Respondent 2] as his water supplier because the body corporate, that manages the complex on behalf of all the owners of each unit, has contracted [Respondent 2] as the 5324301, 531950610 sole supplier of hot and cold water to the complex, as well as the maintenance of the water services infrastructure for the complex. The importation of the body corporate rules, that relate to the rules all occupants must comply with, does not create a landlord/agent and tenant relationship that brings [Respondent 2] into the tenancy as an agent of the landlord. [Respondent 2] is an agent of the body corporate and not of individual owners or landlords of units in the complex. The fact that [Respondent 2] is contracted to maintain the water services infrastructure for the complex does not legally create an agent/tenant relationship; c. It is not uncommon for tenants to contract directly with water services providers such as WaterCare or [Respondent 2]. When the tenant is billed directly by such a water services provider, s39 of the RTA requires that the landlord compensate the tenant for any fixed daily charges that are not directly attributable to the tenant’s consumption. [Respondent 1] confirmed that it reduces the tenant’s rent by the fixed charge amount each month. Therefore, it is not in breach of s39 of the RTA. [Respondent 2] as a water services provider is not legally required to bill tenants and landlords separately for fixed and consumption charges. Some landlords choose to have the water bills in their names and they bill the tenants separately for consumption charges. Other landlords chose to have the tenant contract directly to all utility services providers and then they compensate the tenant for the fixed charges landlords have liability for; d. The tenancy agreement the parties signed does not contain any prohibited transactions as set out in s137 of the RTA. If the tenant alleges the body corporate are engaging in transactions that breach s137 of the RTA, and that alleged breach is impacting his tenancy, he must notify his landlord of his concerns and how the alleged breach is impacting his tenancy, and it is the responsibility of the landlord to bring any such concerns up with the body corporate. There is no legal relationship between the body corporate and the tenant. As such, any issues the body corporate has with the tenant must be addressed via the landlord.
- The applicant has not satisfied me that it is more likely than not that [Respondent 2] is the agent of the landlord because it has a contract with the body corporate of the complex he lives in to provide hot and cold water services to the building and to maintain the water services infrastructure for the complex from the mains to the meters for each unit, but not for the water pipes and other water related infrastructure within each individual unit. Conclusion
- [Respondent 2] is not an agent of the landlord under section 2(1) of the Act. 5324301, 531950611
- [Respondent 2] does not meet the statutory definition of an agent for tenancy purposes.
- Respondent 2] is an independent service provider contracted by the body corporate to supply water and maintain water services infrastructure.
- The landlord is not responsible for [Respondent 2’s] conduct as an "agent" under the RTA.
- The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider claims made against [Respondent 2] as an agent of the landlord or as a landlord in their own right.
- [Respondent 2] is removed as a party to both applications 5324301 and 5319506.