Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5362207 — Tenancy dispute
Decided 20 Jan 2026 · Published 20 Jan 2026 · Application 5362207
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
D Watson
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 names of the applicants, [the owner] and their identifying details.
- [The landlord/s] are granted possession of the premises at [Tenancy address suppressed] at 2 pm on 18 December 2025.
- Mikaele Pritchard must pay [The landlord/s] $28.00 immediately, the filing fee.
Reasons
- The applicants are seeking an order for possession of the property on the grounds that the respondent, Mr Pritchard, is a squatter. The application is therefore brought under s 65 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). 1
- All parties appeared at the hearing. The applicants, [The landlord/s], were represented by [The landlord’s representative].
- [Landlord 1] is the sister of the owner of the property, [the owner]. She and her husband have filed this application under a power of attorney appointing them as attorneys. [The owner] has dementia and Alzheimer’s. She is 1 This is not an application for possession following the ending of an alleged tenancy. unable to take any legal action on her own behalf. The power of attorney has been invoked and the relevant medical evidence has been provided to me to support this.
- [The landlord/s] are two out of three attorneys appointed under that power of attorney. The third attorney is not a party to this application but because the power of attorney records that it is a joint a several appointment, all three are not required to jointly be part of the application.
- Mr Pritchard says he is not a squatter but that he is [the owner]’s partner.
- When Mr Pritchard arrived for the hearing, he said he was ill but did not seek any adjournment. It was not until the end of the hearing that he handed up a medical certificate advising he was unfit to attend work “due to illness”. Mr Pritchard works as a bus driver. The material he handed up included discharge papers for an admission on 10 November for vomiting and abdominal pain.
- This information was only supplied at the end of the hearing. Mr Pritchard had seemed healthy and well throughout the hearing and was able to explain his position clearly to me. He did not appear to be under any physical impediment during the hearing.
- He advised the Tribunal at various times during the hearing that he had a lawyer acting for him. He was unable to fully recall her name but, during the hearing, with the assistance of [The landlord’s representative], a name and phone number for his Counsel were obtained and I spoke directly with her. I return to this below. Background
- [The landlord/s] say [the owner] was put into residential care three years ago, in 2022. At that time, Mr Pritchard was living at the property. He had been living there since 2018. [The landlord/s] were of the view he was a boarder.
- The problem is that the cash funds [the owner] had have been running out, because the residential care costs $7,000 per month. The premises (of which she is the only registered owner), need to be sold to meet the costs of her ongoing care.
- The applicants have been trying to get Mr Pritchard to move out of the property for some time. After [the owner] had to be moved into care, he said he would move several times, but never did.
- [The landlord/s] served him with two trespass notices this year, one in July and one in September. It was not until [Landlord 2] attempted to serve the second trespass notice that Mr Pritchard said, for the first time, that he was the partner of [the owner]. According to [Landlord 1], Mr Pritchard also said he will be living at the property until he dies.
- This evidence was not challenged by Mr Pritchard.
- Mr Pritchard now says he has never been a mere boarder. He said he was always the partner of [the owner] and that he paid water, power and for general maintenance on the house. He also paid for food. He said he would give cash to [the owner] for these items.
- In September 2023, after [Landlord 1] asked him to do so, he began making a more regular payment direct into the bank account of [the owner].
- As noted above, Mr Pritchard said he had a lawyer acting for him who he expected to be present at the hearing today. I was able to call her. She confirmed she is acting for Mr Pritchard in a relationship property matter but that proceedings had not been filed at that the matter was at an early evidence gathering stage. She said she would not be appearing for Mr Pritchard on the application before the Tribunal as she does not practice in this work.
- I have considered whether there should be an adjournment of this matter (despite Mr Pritchard not asking for one), but I have decided that no adjournment is necessary, for reasons set out further below. Relevant law
- Under s 65 of the RTA, the Tribunal shall 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 as 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.
- If the person in possession of residential premises has no lawful authority to be there then the tribunal can therefore make an order granting possession to the person entitled to possession.
- For the Tribunal to make an order under s 65 there are three questions to be considered: a) Are the premises residential premises? b) Is the party making the application for possession entitled to receive possession? c) Is the person in possession of the premises in occupation as a squatter, trespasser or pursuant to some right of occupation? Analysis
- The premises are clearly residential premises, being a three-bedroom home.
- The applicants are entitled to possession, because the power of attorney in relation to the property of [the owner] has been activated.
- Therefore, unless I find that Mr Pritchard has some right to occupy the premises then the applicants will be entitled to f u l l possession of the property.
- I asked Mr Pritchard what the legal and factual basis of his alleged right to occupy the property was, and he was unable to advance any submissions or evidence in this regard, other than pointing to the fact he had been meeting costs.
- He also said [the owner] wanted him to stay there. He provided no corroborating evidence of that.
- His corroborating evidence of his relationship with [the owner] is two photographs and oral evidence of some trips the pair made together.
- I find that Mr Pritchard does not have a lawful right to possession of the property. He has not brought any claim in the Family Court relating to the property. He has not for example even sought an occupation order from the Family Court. [The owner] has been gone from the property for three years and he has had plenty of time to do so.
- Further, there seems to be some doubt as to whether he [the owner] were partners, in a relationship as he says, and not just friends. It seems odd that he would not have asserted that he was her partner earlier when he was in discussions with [The landlord/s] about moving out.
- I therefore find that the requirements of s 65(1) are satisfied. There will be orders made accordingly in favour of [The landlord/s] against the respondent that possession of the property will be granted to [The landlord/s].
- There was some discussion at the hearing as to whether there should be a short adjournment to allow Mr Pritchard the opportunity to get further legal advice. I accept the evidence of [The landlord/s], however, that this matter is pressing. There are no guarantees that this matter would be re-listed for hearing before me before Christmas if there was to be an adjournment. I consider that allowing Mr Pritchard a reasonable period of time to vacate the premises will adequately meet the needs of justice in this case. It will give him time to obtain any orders from the Family Court if that is deemed appropriate by his counsel.
- Because the applicants have been successful, they are entitled to the filing fee.
- I also award name suppression in their favour and in [the owner]’s favour, because they have been the successful party and I consider there is no public interest in [the owner]’s name being published.