What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5368722 about?

The tribunal order states: By way of declaration the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine this

How much money was awarded in case 5368722?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5368722?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5368722?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13034703-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5368722 about?

The tribunal order states: By way of declaration the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine this

How much money was awarded in case 5368722?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5368722?

The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5368722?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13034703-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

21 Sheen Street, Roslyn, Dunedin 9010 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5368722 — Exemplary damages

Order

By way of declaration the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine this application.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
In addition, another tenant also attended the hearing and objected to the fact that Ms Lanigan had filed the application with his name as an applicant without his consent.
As Ms Lanigan confirmed it was not her intention to have the other tenant as an applicant his name has been removed from the order.
However, Ms Lanigan does have a dispute with the other tenant over the refund of money paid to him.
The applicant also seeks exemplary damages for failure to lodge the bond, terminating the tenancy without grounds, and a refund of her $450.00 bond.
In response the other party does not consider the Tribunal has jurisdiction because Ms Lanigan never signed the tenancy agreement or paid any money to them.
The applicant submitted that she moved into the premises on 21/7/2025 and paid a bond of $450.00 to the other tenant.
During her six week occupation which ended on 6/9/2025, the applicant suggested she paid to the other tenant $900.00 rent and $180.00 expenses.
The applicant submitted she applied to the other party on 27/7/2025 through the online portal to sign onto the tenancy agreement.
However, by the time the other party contacted her to either sign the tenancy agreement or move out the applicant confirmed she no longer wished to reside in the premises.
The applicant was very unhappy with the attitude of the other party about the way he asked her to leave.
The other tenant submitted that because the tenancy agreement provided that the tenants could not sublet the premises when two of the four tenants wanted to move out, he had sought replacement tenants.
The relationship between the applicant and the other tenant broke down when the applicant wanted to sublet rather than sign the agreement.
The other tenant agreed he had received the $450.00 and some, but not all of the rent and expenses as claimed by the applicant.

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction?

Questions of jurisdiction are fundamental and must be decided before the Tribunal can go on to make any other findings in a case. Put simply if there is no jurisdiction then I cannot proceed to determine the matter.
In Musson v Dobrisek & Ors DC Lower Hutt CIV-2006-032-36 His Honour Judge Broadmore discussed the broad description of a flatmate arrangement as: By “flatmates” I understand a co-operative arrangement whereby, in a functional sense, all occupants are on [the] same footing in that they have exclusive occupation of their own rooms and shared use and occupation of common areas such as kitchens.
In Watson v Watson & Roo CIV 2010-009-2030 the Court emphasised when determining jurisdictional arguments that it was important to look at the full facts of the situation, decide the substance of the arrangement in place and avoid being diverted by labels that a party may attach to a particular arrangement.
The definition of landlord and tenant is set out in section 2.
Landlord in relation to any residential premises that are subject to a tenancy agreement means the grantor of the premises under the agreement, and a tenant the grantee.
Section 13A sets out the contents a tenancy agreement.
There is no dispute that clause 7 of the tenancy agreement prohibits assigning, subletting or parting with possession of the premises.
However, under section 43B(1) a tenant may, at any time during a tenancy, assign the tenancy- a. With the prior written consent of the landlord; and b. In accordance with any reasonable conditions attached to that consent by the landlord.
Unfortunate as it may be for the applicant, and despite her brief occupation of the premises, I am not persuaded by the evidence that all the requirements were fulfilled for her to become a tenant.
Although the applicant applied to become a tenant the evidence does not support there was a landlord tenant relationship between the parties because the request had not been confirmed nor the tenancy agreement signed by the applicant.
Had Cutlers Limited been more proactive with completing the formalities of the application it is possible the difficulties which arose may have been avoided.
I consider for a brief period of time there was a tenant/tenant relationship between the applicant and the other tenant.
The Tribunal only has jurisdiction between landlords and tenants, not tenants and tenants and therefore I cannot determine this matter.
If there is a dispute between the parties about the terms of the contract between them and refund of the $450.00 then the applicant can pursue this in the Disputes Tribunal.
As the applicant is unsuccessful with her application, I have not awarded the filing fee.

Order

By way of declaration the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine this application.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
In addition, another tenant also attended the hearing and objected to the fact that Ms Lanigan had filed the application with his name as an applicant without his consent.
As Ms Lanigan confirmed it was not her intention to have the other tenant as an applicant his name has been removed from the order.
However, Ms Lanigan does have a dispute with the other tenant over the refund of money paid to him.
The applicant also seeks exemplary damages for failure to lodge the bond, terminating the tenancy without grounds, and a refund of her $450.00 bond.
In response the other party does not consider the Tribunal has jurisdiction because Ms Lanigan never signed the tenancy agreement or paid any money to them.
The applicant submitted that she moved into the premises on 21/7/2025 and paid a bond of $450.00 to the other tenant.
During her six week occupation which ended on 6/9/2025, the applicant suggested she paid to the other tenant $900.00 rent and $180.00 expenses.
The applicant submitted she applied to the other party on 27/7/2025 through the online portal to sign onto the tenancy agreement.
However, by the time the other party contacted her to either sign the tenancy agreement or move out the applicant confirmed she no longer wished to reside in the premises.
The applicant was very unhappy with the attitude of the other party about the way he asked her to leave.
The other tenant submitted that because the tenancy agreement provided that the tenants could not sublet the premises when two of the four tenants wanted to move out, he had sought replacement tenants.
The relationship between the applicant and the other tenant broke down when the applicant wanted to sublet rather than sign the agreement.
The other tenant agreed he had received the $450.00 and some, but not all of the rent and expenses as claimed by the applicant.

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction?

Questions of jurisdiction are fundamental and must be decided before the Tribunal can go on to make any other findings in a case. Put simply if there is no jurisdiction then I cannot proceed to determine the matter.
In Musson v Dobrisek & Ors DC Lower Hutt CIV-2006-032-36 His Honour Judge Broadmore discussed the broad description of a flatmate arrangement as: By “flatmates” I understand a co-operative arrangement whereby, in a functional sense, all occupants are on [the] same footing in that they have exclusive occupation of their own rooms and shared use and occupation of common areas such as kitchens.
In Watson v Watson & Roo CIV 2010-009-2030 the Court emphasised when determining jurisdictional arguments that it was important to look at the full facts of the situation, decide the substance of the arrangement in place and avoid being diverted by labels that a party may attach to a particular arrangement.
The definition of landlord and tenant is set out in section 2.
Landlord in relation to any residential premises that are subject to a tenancy agreement means the grantor of the premises under the agreement, and a tenant the grantee.
Section 13A sets out the contents a tenancy agreement.
There is no dispute that clause 7 of the tenancy agreement prohibits assigning, subletting or parting with possession of the premises.
However, under section 43B(1) a tenant may, at any time during a tenancy, assign the tenancy- a. With the prior written consent of the landlord; and b. In accordance with any reasonable conditions attached to that consent by the landlord.
Unfortunate as it may be for the applicant, and despite her brief occupation of the premises, I am not persuaded by the evidence that all the requirements were fulfilled for her to become a tenant.
Although the applicant applied to become a tenant the evidence does not support there was a landlord tenant relationship between the parties because the request had not been confirmed nor the tenancy agreement signed by the applicant.
Had Cutlers Limited been more proactive with completing the formalities of the application it is possible the difficulties which arose may have been avoided.
I consider for a brief period of time there was a tenant/tenant relationship between the applicant and the other tenant.
The Tribunal only has jurisdiction between landlords and tenants, not tenants and tenants and therefore I cannot determine this matter.
If there is a dispute between the parties about the terms of the contract between them and refund of the $450.00 then the applicant can pursue this in the Disputes Tribunal.
As the applicant is unsuccessful with her application, I have not awarded the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5368722 — Exemplary damages at 21 Sheen Street, Roslyn, Dunedin 9010

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5368722 — Exemplary damages at 21 Sheen Street, Roslyn, Dunedin 9010

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions