What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5366221 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 5366221?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5366221?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5366221?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12756476-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5366221 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 5366221?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5366221?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5366221?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12756476-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5366221 — Tenancy dispute

Order

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

Reasons

The applicants attended the hearing.
The respondents did not attend the hearing. The respondents were served with the notice of hearing by post. The hearing proceeded in their absence.
On 3 November 2025, the applicant’s purchased [Tenancy address suppressed], from the Co-Operative Bank Limited (as vendor and mortgagee).
The previous owners, the respondents, remain in occupation of the premises. The applicants have applied for possession of the premises. Eviction of squatters
The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, 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.
Section 65 of the RTA relates to the eviction of squatters.
A squatter is a person in possession of premises when they are not a lawful tenant.
Section 65 states: 65 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.
Before the Tribunal makes an order under s 65 there are three issues that must 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?
If the applicant can prove (a) and (b) then the onus will move to the respondents to prove on the balance of probabilities that they have a right of occupation granted by any person with lawful authority to grant it and that the right has not been terminated.
If these three elements are established, then the Tribunal must make a possession order.
The exercise of the jurisdiction under section 65 does not involve a discretion. 1

Are the premises residential premises?

The RTA defines a 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 purposes is or would be unlawful”. 2
The applicants have filed evidence which confirms the premises is a home and the respondents are residing in it.
I find that is it residential premises. Is the party making the application for possession entitled to receive possession of the premises?
The applicants have provided evidence that they are the registered legal owners of the premises, by way of the sale and purchase agreement and the Record of Title dated 10 November 2025.
As the legal owner of the premises, the applicants are prima facie entitled to possession of the premises.
The onus then shifts to the respondents to satisfy the Tribunal that they are in possession of the premises pursuant to a right of occupation granted by the legal owner of the premises. Is the person in possession of the premises in occupation as a squatter or trespasser or pursuant to some right of occupation?
The respondents did not attend the hearing.
I note that the applicants, as legal owners of the premises, have given the respondents notice to vacate the premises by way of their application to the Tribunal.
I find that the respondents are in possession of the premises without any lawful right to occupy the premises as a squatter or trespasser. 1 Sergeant v Nigro [2019] NZHC328 at [27]. 2 See section 2 of the RTA. Decision
Having been satisfied of the statutory pre-requisites under section 65 of the RTA, it is mandatory for me to make a possession order in favour of the applicants. Filing fee and name suppression
The applicants did not seek reimbursement of the filing fee.
The applicants sought name suppression and as they have been successful in the claim I make an order suppressing their names and identifying details.

Reasons

The applicants attended the hearing.

The respondents did not attend the hearing. The respondents were served with the notice of hearing by post. The hearing proceeded in their absence.

On 3 November 2025, the applicant’s purchased [Tenancy address suppressed], from the Co-Operative Bank Limited (as vendor and mortgagee).

The previous owners, the respondents, remain in occupation of the premises. The applicants have applied for possession of the premises. Eviction of squatters

The relevant law that applies is found in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).

With any claim before the Tenancy Tribunal, the Tribunal applies the usual civil law standards and expectations That includes a requirement that the applicant, establish their claims on the balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities means more likely than un-likely, 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.

Section 65 of the RTA relates to the eviction of squatters.

A squatter is a person in possession of premises when they are not a lawful tenant.

Section 65 states: 65 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.

Before the Tribunal makes an order under s 65 there are three issues that must 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?

If the applicant can prove (a) and (b) then the onus will move to the respondents to prove on the balance of probabilities that they have a right of occupation granted by any person with lawful authority to grant it and that the right has not been terminated.

If these three elements are established, then the Tribunal must make a possession order.

The exercise of the jurisdiction under section 65 does not involve a discretion. 1

Are the premises residential premises?

The RTA defines a 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 purposes is or would be unlawful”. 2

The applicants have filed evidence which confirms the premises is a home and the respondents are residing in it.

I find that is it residential premises. Is the party making the application for possession entitled to receive possession of the premises?

The applicants have provided evidence that they are the registered legal owners of the premises, by way of the sale and purchase agreement and the Record of Title dated 10 November 2025.

As the legal owner of the premises, the applicants are prima facie entitled to possession of the premises.

The onus then shifts to the respondents to satisfy the Tribunal that they are in possession of the premises pursuant to a right of occupation granted by the legal owner of the premises. Is the person in possession of the premises in occupation as a squatter or trespasser or pursuant to some right of occupation?

The respondents did not attend the hearing.

I note that the applicants, as legal owners of the premises, have given the respondents notice to vacate the premises by way of their application to the Tribunal.

I find that the respondents are in possession of the premises without any lawful right to occupy the premises as a squatter or trespasser. 1 Sergeant v Nigro [2019] NZHC328 at [27]. 2 See section 2 of the RTA. Decision

Having been satisfied of the statutory pre-requisites under section 65 of the RTA, it is mandatory for me to make a possession order in favour of the applicants. Filing fee and name suppression

The applicants did not seek reimbursement of the filing fee.

The applicants sought name suppression and as they have been successful in the claim I make an order suppressing their names and identifying details.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5366221 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5366221 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the premises residential premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Are the premises residential premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions