What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5389566 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the applicant’s and respondent’s name and

How much money was awarded in case 5389566?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5389566?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5389566?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12830786-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5389566 about?

The tribunal order states: The Tribunal orders suppression of the applicant’s and respondent’s name and

How much money was awarded in case 5389566?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5389566?

The primary dispute was Unit Titles.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5389566?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12830786-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5389566 — Unit Titles

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the applicant’s and respondent’s name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] is granted possession of the premises at [Tenancy address suppressed] immediately.

Reasons

The applicant appeared by telephone. The Tribunal called the respondent on the number provided, but they did not answer. The matter has proceeded in their absence.
The property at [ suppressed] was sold at a mortgagee sale on 07 October 2025. The applicant settled on 12 November 2025. A Record of Title has been produced confirming that the applicant is the registered owner of the property. The respondent, who is the former owner, has refused to vacate the property. The applicant has taken steps to serve a trespass notice on the respondent.
On 14 November 2025, the applicant filed an application seeking possession of the property under section 65 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
On 26 November 2025, the application was scheduled for a telephone hearing today, 05 December 2025.
There is a case note recording that on or about 01 December 2025, the respondent acknowledged the notice of hearing but stated that they were not a tenant, that the matter was before the Court, and that on that basis they would not be attending. The respondent provided a minute issued by a Justice of the High Court dated 12 August 2025, rejecting an application for an interlocutory order, and an email from the High Court Registrar dated 12 November 2025, advising that an application filed by the respondent for interim orders did not comply with the High Court Rules as the filing fee was missing. Law
Section 65 of the Act provides. 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) of this section 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 onus of proving this claim for possession rests with the applicant. The standard of proof required is on the balance of probabilities. In this case the applicant must establish, more likely than not, that the grounds on which the order for possession is sought in fact exist.
To make an order for possession under section 65(1) of the Act, the Tribunal must therefore be satisfied that: a. The premises are residential b. The applicant is entitled to possession of the premises c. The person against who the order is sought is in possession of the premises is either: i. A trespasser, or ii. A squatter, or iii. Does not have a right to occupy granted by a person with lawful authority to grant that right.
Residential premises are defined in section 2(1) of the Act as any premises used or intended to be 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.
“Squatter” and “trespasser” are not defined in the Act. In Chuan Wu and Theta Management Ltd v Body Corporate 366611 [2014] SC 137, the Court at [115] stated: “Trespass to land is an unjustified direct interference with land in the possession of another. A squatter is someone who occupies property or land when they have no legal right to do so.” In McPhail v Persons Unknown [1973] 3 All ER 393 at 395, the Court held that a squatter “was one who, without any colour of right, enters on an unoccupied house or land, intending to stay there as long as they can.” Analysis and decision
Section 65(3) confirms the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to make orders for possession even when the premises are not subject to a tenancy agreement.
The premises are residential. The applicant is the registered owner of the property and is therefore entitled to possession. There is no evidence that the applicant has granted the respondent a right to occupy the premises under a tenancy agreement, nor is there any evidence of any orders made by the Court. The respondent is a squatter and does not have a right to occupy granted by a person with lawful authority to grant that right.
Pursuant to section 65, the applicant is granted immediate possession of the property. Name suppression
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the parties name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The applicant has been wholly successful and is granted name suppression.
Section 95A (4) of the Act allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.
The dispute does not arise from a contractual relationship between the parties. Losing a home in a mortgagee sale is no doubt extremely distressing. While I am satisfied that the facts and reasoning of this decision are in the public interest, I am not satisfied that this interest necessarily extends to the name of the respondent. I am satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to depart from the principle of open justice and to exercise the discretion in subsection 95A(4). Accordingly, the Tribunal also orders suppression of the respondent’s name.

Order

The Tribunal orders suppression of the applicant’s and respondent’s name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] is granted possession of the premises at [Tenancy address suppressed] immediately.

Reasons

The applicant appeared by telephone. The Tribunal called the respondent on the number provided, but they did not answer. The matter has proceeded in their absence.
The property at [ suppressed] was sold at a mortgagee sale on 07 October 2025. The applicant settled on 12 November 2025. A Record of Title has been produced confirming that the applicant is the registered owner of the property. The respondent, who is the former owner, has refused to vacate the property. The applicant has taken steps to serve a trespass notice on the respondent.
On 14 November 2025, the applicant filed an application seeking possession of the property under section 65 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
On 26 November 2025, the application was scheduled for a telephone hearing today, 05 December 2025.
There is a case note recording that on or about 01 December 2025, the respondent acknowledged the notice of hearing but stated that they were not a tenant, that the matter was before the Court, and that on that basis they would not be attending. The respondent provided a minute issued by a Justice of the High Court dated 12 August 2025, rejecting an application for an interlocutory order, and an email from the High Court Registrar dated 12 November 2025, advising that an application filed by the respondent for interim orders did not comply with the High Court Rules as the filing fee was missing. Law
Section 65 of the Act provides. 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) of this section 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 onus of proving this claim for possession rests with the applicant. The standard of proof required is on the balance of probabilities. In this case the applicant must establish, more likely than not, that the grounds on which the order for possession is sought in fact exist.
To make an order for possession under section 65(1) of the Act, the Tribunal must therefore be satisfied that: a. The premises are residential b. The applicant is entitled to possession of the premises c. The person against who the order is sought is in possession of the premises is either: i. A trespasser, or ii. A squatter, or iii. Does not have a right to occupy granted by a person with lawful authority to grant that right.
Residential premises are defined in section 2(1) of the Act as any premises used or intended to be 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.
“Squatter” and “trespasser” are not defined in the Act. In Chuan Wu and Theta Management Ltd v Body Corporate 366611 [2014] SC 137, the Court at [115] stated: “Trespass to land is an unjustified direct interference with land in the possession of another. A squatter is someone who occupies property or land when they have no legal right to do so.” In McPhail v Persons Unknown [1973] 3 All ER 393 at 395, the Court held that a squatter “was one who, without any colour of right, enters on an unoccupied house or land, intending to stay there as long as they can.” Analysis and decision
Section 65(3) confirms the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to make orders for possession even when the premises are not subject to a tenancy agreement.
The premises are residential. The applicant is the registered owner of the property and is therefore entitled to possession. There is no evidence that the applicant has granted the respondent a right to occupy the premises under a tenancy agreement, nor is there any evidence of any orders made by the Court. The respondent is a squatter and does not have a right to occupy granted by a person with lawful authority to grant that right.
Pursuant to section 65, the applicant is granted immediate possession of the property. Name suppression
Section 95A of the Act provides that on the application of a party that has been wholly or substantially successful in proceedings, the Tribunal must order that the parties name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that it is in the public interest to publish the names of the parties, or is justified because of the parties’ conduct, or any other circumstances of the case.
The applicant has been wholly successful and is granted name suppression.
Section 95A (4) of the Act allows the Tribunal, on the application of any party to the proceedings, or on its own initiative, having regard to the interest of the parties and the public interest, to order that all or part of the evidence, or the name or any identifying particulars of any witnesses or party, not be published.
The dispute does not arise from a contractual relationship between the parties. Losing a home in a mortgagee sale is no doubt extremely distressing. While I am satisfied that the facts and reasoning of this decision are in the public interest, I am not satisfied that this interest necessarily extends to the name of the respondent. I am satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to depart from the principle of open justice and to exercise the discretion in subsection 95A(4). Accordingly, the Tribunal also orders suppression of the respondent’s name.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5389566 — Unit Titles

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5389566 — Unit Titles

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions