What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5363321 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 5363321?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5363321?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5363321?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12785873-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5363321 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 5363321?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5363321?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5363321?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12785873-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5363321 — Rent arrears

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] is granted vacant possession of the premises at [Tenancy address suppressed] immediately.
Nikita Awhina Wairere Wiggins and Stewart Victor Kay must pay [The landlord/s] $28.00 immediately, being the filing fee for this application.
The application for rent arrears of $4,400.00 and unspecified legal costs is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, by telephone. A mandarin interpreter also attended the hearing to assist the landlord and the Tribunal.
The applicant has applied for vacant possession of the premises following her purchase at a mortgagee sale.
In addition, the applicant sought rent arrears of $4,400.00 from 1/10/2025 to today and unspecified legal costs.
The applicant submitted that she purchased the property at a mortgagee sale on 7/8/2025.
Initially the settlement date was 2/9/2025 but after negotiations with the respondent this was moved twice to 26/9 then 1/10/2025.
When the respondent was still in the premises after 1/10 the applicant submitted that she asked her lawyer to send a fixed term tenancy agreement from 1/10 to 14/11/2025.
The applicant believed the respondent had signed the tenancy agreement, but that no rent or bond had been paid.
Subsequently the applicant issued a Trespass Notice.
In support of her claim the applicant provided a copy of the settlement statement for the purchase from her lawyer, a search copy dated 7/10/2025 of the Record of Title under the Land Transfer Act 2017, correspondence between the lawyer and the respondent, text messages between the parties, a signed tenancy agreement and Trespass Notice.
On the other hand, the respondent submitted that while they knew the property was going to be auctioned, they thought this had been “quashed”, until advised by the agent the property had been sold.
As the sale had been undertaken without their consent, and the purchase of the property they intended to buy cancelled, the respondent suggested they did not intend to vacate the premises.
Further the respondent disputed they had signed any tenancy agreement and believed the signatures on the agreement were “fake”.
The respondent had also issued a trespass notice against the applicant.
In support of their position the respondent provided a purchase statement from their lawyer for the premises dated 18/12/2020, a search copy dated 21/12/2020 of the Record of Title under the Land Transfer Act 2017, respective drivers’ licenses with signatures and a Trespass Notice. The Law
Section 65 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides for the eviction of squatters: (1) Where, on the application of any person entitled to possession of any residential premises, the Tribunal is satisfied that any other person is in possession of the premises as a squatter or 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, the Tribunal shall make a possession order granting possession of the premises to the applicant. (2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall limit or affect the provisions of the Trespass Act 1980, or any other remedy that may be available to the person lawfully entitled to possession of the premises. (3) To avoid doubt, the Tribunal has jurisdiction under this section even though the premises are not subject to a tenancy agreement.
The High Court in Sergeant v Nigro and Tapsell [2019] NZHC 328 considered section 65. The Court found there were three conditions which have to be met before an order can be made: (a) The premises the subject of the application are residential premises. (b) The applicant for possession is entitled to possession of those premises. (c) 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.

Are the premises residential premises?

Section 2 of the RTA defines residential premises as, “any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence, whether or not the occupation or intended occupation for residential premises is or would be unlawful.”
“Premises” includes: (a) any part of any premises; and (b) any land and appurtenances, other than facilities; and (c) any mobile home, caravan, or other means of shelter placed or erected upon any land and intended for occupation on that land.
There is no dispute that the premises are residential premises.

Is the applicant entitled to possession?

The applicant submitted that she was entitled to possession because she owned the property and had made repeated efforts to persuade the respondent to voluntarily leave.
I find the evidence supports that the applicant is the only party with lawful authority to grant a right of occupation and that no such right has been granted to the respondent.
I am not persuaded by the evidence of the signed tenancy agreement that there was a valid tenancy between the parties entitling the respondent to possession.
The respondent denied signing the agreement.
Both parties agreed that no rent or bond was paid in consideration of a tenancy.
The tenancy agreement contains no clause pursuant to section 7(1) that it would not be extended or renewed to give a total length of term in excess of 90 days.
As there was no valid tenancy the claim for rent arrears and unspecified legal costs fails.
The wording of section 65 is clear that the exercise of the jurisdiction does not involve a discretion. If the primary jurisdictional requirements are satisfied, then the Tribunal must make an order for possession. This was confirmed by the District Court in Wallath v Wallath [2021] NZDC 14323.
Therefore, the Tribunal must order immediate possession of the premises to the applicant.
As [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must award the filing fee.
Suppression is granted to the applicant pursuant to section 95A(1) because she was largely successful in the proceedings.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] is granted vacant possession of the premises at [Tenancy address suppressed] immediately.
Nikita Awhina Wairere Wiggins and Stewart Victor Kay must pay [The landlord/s] $28.00 immediately, being the filing fee for this application.
The application for rent arrears of $4,400.00 and unspecified legal costs is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, by telephone. A mandarin interpreter also attended the hearing to assist the landlord and the Tribunal.
The applicant has applied for vacant possession of the premises following her purchase at a mortgagee sale.
In addition, the applicant sought rent arrears of $4,400.00 from 1/10/2025 to today and unspecified legal costs.
The applicant submitted that she purchased the property at a mortgagee sale on 7/8/2025.
Initially the settlement date was 2/9/2025 but after negotiations with the respondent this was moved twice to 26/9 then 1/10/2025.
When the respondent was still in the premises after 1/10 the applicant submitted that she asked her lawyer to send a fixed term tenancy agreement from 1/10 to 14/11/2025.
The applicant believed the respondent had signed the tenancy agreement, but that no rent or bond had been paid.
Subsequently the applicant issued a Trespass Notice.
In support of her claim the applicant provided a copy of the settlement statement for the purchase from her lawyer, a search copy dated 7/10/2025 of the Record of Title under the Land Transfer Act 2017, correspondence between the lawyer and the respondent, text messages between the parties, a signed tenancy agreement and Trespass Notice.
On the other hand, the respondent submitted that while they knew the property was going to be auctioned, they thought this had been “quashed”, until advised by the agent the property had been sold.
As the sale had been undertaken without their consent, and the purchase of the property they intended to buy cancelled, the respondent suggested they did not intend to vacate the premises.
Further the respondent disputed they had signed any tenancy agreement and believed the signatures on the agreement were “fake”.
The respondent had also issued a trespass notice against the applicant.
In support of their position the respondent provided a purchase statement from their lawyer for the premises dated 18/12/2020, a search copy dated 21/12/2020 of the Record of Title under the Land Transfer Act 2017, respective drivers’ licenses with signatures and a Trespass Notice. The Law
Section 65 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides for the eviction of squatters: (1) Where, on the application of any person entitled to possession of any residential premises, the Tribunal is satisfied that any other person is in possession of the premises as a squatter or 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, the Tribunal shall make a possession order granting possession of the premises to the applicant. (2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall limit or affect the provisions of the Trespass Act 1980, or any other remedy that may be available to the person lawfully entitled to possession of the premises. (3) To avoid doubt, the Tribunal has jurisdiction under this section even though the premises are not subject to a tenancy agreement.
The High Court in Sergeant v Nigro and Tapsell [2019] NZHC 328 considered section 65. The Court found there were three conditions which have to be met before an order can be made: (a) The premises the subject of the application are residential premises. (b) The applicant for possession is entitled to possession of those premises. (c) 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.

Are the premises residential premises?

Section 2 of the RTA defines residential premises as, “any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence, whether or not the occupation or intended occupation for residential premises is or would be unlawful.”
“Premises” includes: (a) any part of any premises; and (b) any land and appurtenances, other than facilities; and (c) any mobile home, caravan, or other means of shelter placed or erected upon any land and intended for occupation on that land.
There is no dispute that the premises are residential premises.

Is the applicant entitled to possession?

The applicant submitted that she was entitled to possession because she owned the property and had made repeated efforts to persuade the respondent to voluntarily leave.
I find the evidence supports that the applicant is the only party with lawful authority to grant a right of occupation and that no such right has been granted to the respondent.
I am not persuaded by the evidence of the signed tenancy agreement that there was a valid tenancy between the parties entitling the respondent to possession.
The respondent denied signing the agreement.
Both parties agreed that no rent or bond was paid in consideration of a tenancy.
The tenancy agreement contains no clause pursuant to section 7(1) that it would not be extended or renewed to give a total length of term in excess of 90 days.
As there was no valid tenancy the claim for rent arrears and unspecified legal costs fails.
The wording of section 65 is clear that the exercise of the jurisdiction does not involve a discretion. If the primary jurisdictional requirements are satisfied, then the Tribunal must make an order for possession. This was confirmed by the District Court in Wallath v Wallath [2021] NZDC 14323.
Therefore, the Tribunal must order immediate possession of the premises to the applicant.
As [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must award the filing fee.
Suppression is granted to the applicant pursuant to section 95A(1) because she was largely successful in the proceedings.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5363321 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5363321 — Rent arrears

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the premises residential premises?

Is the applicant entitled to possession?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the premises residential premises?

Is the applicant entitled to possession?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions