What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5360967 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5360967?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5360967?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5360967?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12676910-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5360967 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5360967?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5360967?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5360967?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12676910-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5360967 — Tenancy dispute

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord’s name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] is granted possession of the premises at [Tenancy address suppressed] immediately.

Reasons

[Applicant] for the applicant appeared. The occupant did not appear. The Tribunal was satisfied they were properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in their absence.
The applicant has applied for possession of the premises under section 65 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”), or, in the alternative, possession is sought in accordance with section 64(1) of the Act. Relevant legal considerations
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.
That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.
This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.
As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence. Background summary
The legal description of the property is “Part Kauaranga E13 block”, and the registered owners are listed as [Applicant] and [Applicant].
The property was bequeathed to the Trust in 2014. In 2022 the Trust took possession of the property.
On 19 December 2023 the applicant visited the property. The applicant believed the property to be empty due to the state of disrepair but discovered a person by the name of Michael Fox, also known as Matthew Fox, living on site. The applicant believes the occupant is a squatter.
The applicant said Mr Fox claimed the beneficiary (under the trust) allowed him to live at the premises in exchange for rent, and on the understanding he would look after the property. Mr Fox told the applicant that he had not paid rent or had any contact with the beneficiary in the past two years.
The applicant told the Tribunal that the beneficiary under the trust had suffered from a significant medical event, was non-communicative, and had not managed his own affairs for a number of years.
The Tribunal was told the applicant could find no evidence to suggest a tenancy agreement had been entered into for the property, nor was there any evidence the occupant had ever paid rent.
Out of caution the applicants served a 90-day notice on the occupant terminating the tenancy. The notice was dated 23 June 2025 and expired on 23 September 2025. Mr Fox failed to vacate the property.
On 30 September 2025 Mr Fox was served a trespass notice, trespassing him from the property. Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to make an order for possession under section 65 of the Act?
Under section 65 of the Act, the Tribunal must make an order granting possession of the premises to the person entitled to possession of any residential premises, where the Tribunal: “is satisfied that any other person is in possession of the premises is a squatter, 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.”
Section 65 of the Act 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: i. The premises must be residential premises. ii. The applicant is entitled to possession. iii. 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 applicant confirmed that the premises are residential.
The applicant provided documentary evidence that it is the registered owner of the property and therefore entitled to possession.
The applicant confirmed that it had not granted any right of occupation to the occupant.
The Tribunal therefore finds that the applicant, as the legal owner, is entitled to possession of the premises at [tenancy address suppressed].
As the current occupant has no lawful right to occupy the premises, all elements of section 65 of the Act have been satisfied and a possession order is granted. Possession under section 64(1) of the Act
If the Tribunal is wrong, and the occupant is a tenant and not a squatter, then possession of the property is granted under section 64 (1) of the Act. The tenancy ended on 23 September 2025, which is less than 90 days ago. The requirements of section 64(1) of the Act are satisfied. Costs
Despite being wholly successful the applicant did not seek costs. Name suppression
The landlord seeks name suppression. Under section 95A of the Act, a party who has been either wholly or substantially successful is entitled to name suppression unless the Tribunal finds that there are reasons relating to the conduct of the party not to do so.
In this case the landlord has been wholly successful and is granted name suppression.

Reasons

[Applicant] for the applicant appeared. The occupant did not appear. The Tribunal was satisfied they were properly served with the notice of hearing and the case proceeded in their absence.

The applicant has applied for possession of the premises under section 65 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”), or, in the alternative, possession is sought in accordance with section 64(1) of the Act. Relevant legal considerations

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.

With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations.

That includes a requirement that the party bringing the claim (the applicant), establish their claims “on the balance of probabilities.” The balance of probabilities means more likely than unlikely, or in mathematical terms, has a fractionally more than 50% likelihood. The Tribunal does not need to be certain or very sure about any claim, only that what is claimed is likely.

This obligation carried by the applicant is referred to as the “burden of proof.” Independent witnesses, corroborating documents and photographs are an important part of discharging this burden.

As noted by the District Court in Kaipo v Clarke & McCarthy (DC) TT233/02, in practical terms this means that: ... [L]ike anyone who brings an application before a Tribunal or Court, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide the evidence necessary to prove the case. If the applicant fails to do that, then their application will be dismissed whether it has merit or not because it is up to the applicant to provide the necessary evidence. It is not up to the other parties, and it is certainly not up to the Tribunal to extract evidence. Background summary

The legal description of the property is “Part Kauaranga E13 block”, and the registered owners are listed as [Applicant] and [Applicant].

The property was bequeathed to the Trust in 2014. In 2022 the Trust took possession of the property.

On 19 December 2023 the applicant visited the property. The applicant believed the property to be empty due to the state of disrepair but discovered a person by the name of Michael Fox, also known as Matthew Fox, living on site. The applicant believes the occupant is a squatter.

The applicant said Mr Fox claimed the beneficiary (under the trust) allowed him to live at the premises in exchange for rent, and on the understanding he would look after the property. Mr Fox told the applicant that he had not paid rent or had any contact with the beneficiary in the past two years.

The applicant told the Tribunal that the beneficiary under the trust had suffered from a significant medical event, was non-communicative, and had not managed his own affairs for a number of years.

The Tribunal was told the applicant could find no evidence to suggest a tenancy agreement had been entered into for the property, nor was there any evidence the occupant had ever paid rent.

Out of caution the applicants served a 90-day notice on the occupant terminating the tenancy. The notice was dated 23 June 2025 and expired on 23 September 2025. Mr Fox failed to vacate the property.

On 30 September 2025 Mr Fox was served a trespass notice, trespassing him from the property. Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to make an order for possession under section 65 of the Act?

Under section 65 of the Act, the Tribunal must make an order granting possession of the premises to the person entitled to possession of any residential premises, where the Tribunal: “is satisfied that any other person is in possession of the premises is a squatter, 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.”

Section 65 of the Act 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: i. The premises must be residential premises. ii. The applicant is entitled to possession. iii. 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 applicant confirmed that the premises are residential.

The applicant provided documentary evidence that it is the registered owner of the property and therefore entitled to possession.

The applicant confirmed that it had not granted any right of occupation to the occupant.

The Tribunal therefore finds that the applicant, as the legal owner, is entitled to possession of the premises at [tenancy address suppressed].

As the current occupant has no lawful right to occupy the premises, all elements of section 65 of the Act have been satisfied and a possession order is granted. Possession under section 64(1) of the Act

If the Tribunal is wrong, and the occupant is a tenant and not a squatter, then possession of the property is granted under section 64 (1) of the Act. The tenancy ended on 23 September 2025, which is less than 90 days ago. The requirements of section 64(1) of the Act are satisfied. Costs

Despite being wholly successful the applicant did not seek costs. Name suppression

The landlord seeks name suppression. Under section 95A of the Act, a party who has been either wholly or substantially successful is entitled to name suppression unless the Tribunal finds that there are reasons relating to the conduct of the party not to do so.

In this case the landlord has been wholly successful and is granted name suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5360967 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5360967 — Tenancy dispute

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