What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5333462?

The tribunal order states: The application is struck out for want of jurisdiction.

How much money was awarded in case 5333462?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5333462?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5333462?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13140843-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5333462?

The tribunal order states: The application is struck out for want of jurisdiction.

How much money was awarded in case 5333462?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5333462?

The primary dispute was Boarding House.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5333462?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13140843-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

21 Condor Place, Unsworth Heights, Auckland 0632 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5333462 — Boarding House

Tenantcheck Insights

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Loading insights…

Pulling tribunal records

Reasons

The hearing was conducted remotely on Microsoft Teams.

Both parties attended.

Ms Ying challenged the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because she says the living arrangements that are the subject of the claim amounted to a flatmate/house sharing agreement not a residential tenancy.

After hearing from the parties, I concur with Ms Ying that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the matter. Legal principles

The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 is excluded where the premises, not being a boarding house, continue to be used, during the tenancy, principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the owner of the premises or by any member of the landlord’s or owner’s family. 1 Discussion

The premises is owned by the tenant’s father. Ms Ying has lived at the premises with her son for about 10 years. During that time she has rented out rooms to about two to four people at a time.

The tenants exclusively occupied their own bedrooms and had exclusive use or shared use with another tenant of one of two bathrooms (Ms Ying has her own ensuite). Otherwise, the kitchen, dining room, living room and all other areas of the house were shared by Ms Ying and the other occupants.

In Cavanagh v Jackson [2025] NZHC 1491 Mander J in the High Court dealt with a jurisdiction challenge. The tenant exclusively occupied a bedroom but shared the rest of the premises aside from the landlord’s bedroom and ensuite. The tenant and shared a bathroom with the other tenant. Everyone shared the kitchen, laundry, and the living room (although the tenant seldom used the living room). His Honour found: [33] I consider the premises rented by Ms Cavanagh extended to other parts of the dwelling that continued to be used during Ms Cavanagh’s tenancy principally as a place of residence by Mrs Jackson. It follows that the Judge’s conclusion that s 5(1)(n) applied to exclude the application of the Act, which in large part rested on factual findings that are not amenable to a further appeal, must remain undisturbed.

In summary, generally, where the tenant exclusively occupies a defined area of the house, the landlord exclusively occupies another area of the house, and the landlord and the tenant do not share any part of the house, s 5(1)(n) does not apply. On the other hand, where the tenant exclusively occupies a bedroom and a bathroom (with another tenant or tenants), the landlord exclusively occupies a bedroom and a bathroom, and the landlord and the tenants share the rest of the house, s 5(1)(n) does apply. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) s 5(1)(n).

It is possible to imagine scenarios where the Tribunal might find that the landlord’s or family member’s use of a shared premises is not “principally as a place of residence”. However, I am satisfied that in this case, Ms Ying used the premises principally as a place of residence and not for some other use such as generating rental income.

It follows, I find that s 5(1)(n) is engaged and the Act is excluded. Conclusion

The Act is excluded. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claim.

The application is struck out. 2

The applicant may bring proceedings in a different forum, however.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted remotely on Microsoft Teams.

Both parties attended.

Ms Ying challenged the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because she says the living arrangements that are the subject of the claim amounted to a flatmate/house sharing agreement not a residential tenancy.

After hearing from the parties, I concur with Ms Ying that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the matter. Legal principles

The premises is owned by the tenant’s father. Ms Ying has lived at the premises with her son for about 10 years. During that time she has rented out rooms to about two to four people at a time.

It follows, I find that s 5(1)(n) is engaged and the Act is excluded. Conclusion

The Act is excluded. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claim.

The application is struck out. 2

The applicant may bring proceedings in a different forum, however.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5333462 — Boarding House at 21 Condor Place, Unsworth Heights, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5333462 — Boarding House at 21 Condor Place, Unsworth Heights, Auckland 0632

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions