Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5334362 — Tenancy dispute
Decided 20 Mar 2026 · Published 20 Mar 2026 · Application 5334362
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
S Young
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 the Tenant and Landlord’s names and identifying details.
- The application is struck out.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the video hearing on 3 October 2025.
- [The tenant’s representative] appeared for [The tenant/s] (who for the purposes of convenience only, I will refer in this order as the “tenant”). [The landlord’s representative] is the attorney of one of the company directors, [The landlord/s].
- The applicant landlord is a limited liability company (“the company”).
- The Directors of the company are [The landlord/s] and [The tenant/s].
- The company has adopted the default constitution contained in the Companies Act 1993. That requires directors of the companies to act by majority. Where there are only two directors, decisions must be made unanimously as the constitution does not provide for a casting vote.
- At the commencement of the hearing I raised this matter as a preliminary issue with the parties.
- [The landlord’s representative] confirmed that no resolution had been passed by the Directors of the company allowing for these proceedings to be issued. [The tenant’s representative] confirmed that the tenant had not signed such a resolution.
- A company acts at the direction of its directors. No resolution has been passed by the company directors in favour of these proceedings being issued.
- Section 92A of the Residential Tenancy Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal may strike out a proceeding if it is satisfied that it discloses no reasonable cause of action, is likely to cause prejudice or delay, is frivolous or vexatious or is otherwise an abuse of process.
- Striking out proceedings have been used by the courts to prevent claims that have no chance of success from being litigated. I had no difficulty in finding that without the appropriate resolution having been passed by the applicant company, that these proceedings cannot continue.
- The claim is struck out.
- Having considered the evidence filed, it appears to me that this is in fact a dispute between owners. How the parties wish to resolve this dispute is a matter for them to consider. This Tribunal is not the appropriate forum.
- Both parties applied for name suppression. The parties are in essence “related” and there is no public interest in the details of this dispute. Suppression of both the landlord’s and tenant’s names and details is ordered.