What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5389943 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 5389943?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5389943?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5389943?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12846170-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5389943 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 5389943?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5389943?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5389943?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12846170-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

33 Takahe Street, Tikipunga, Whangarei 0112 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5389943 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5389943 — net $28.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$28.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$28.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Applicant and Respondent’s name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] is granted possession of the premises at 33 Takahe Street, Tikipunga, Whangarei 0112 immediately.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $28.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 9 December 2025. The Applicant was represented by [the Applicant].
The Applicant has applied for a possession order under section 65 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The Applicant must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. Background
[the Applicant] passed away on or about 3 March 2024 leaving six children: a. [the Applicant]. b. [the Applicant]. c. [the Applicant]. d. [the Applicant]. e. [the Applicant]. f. [the Applicant].
Probate was granted to [the Applicant] on 8 May 2024.
[the Applicant] owned the premises at 33 Takahe Street, Tikipunga, Whangarei 0112 (“the premises”), which now form part of her estate. For over ten years, [the Respondent] has lived at the premises with her children.
[The Respondent] claims she has agreed to give possession of the premises to the Applicant. The Applicant questions whether [the Respondent] will fulfil this promise and claims that similar promises have been made in the past and not honoured. [The Respondent] declined to allow the Tribunal to make an order for possession of the premises in favour of the Applicant by consent at the hearing.
The Applicant wants an order for possession of the premises to enable them to sell the premises and distribute the proceeds of sale according to the terms of the late [the Applicant’s] will.
Most of the provisions in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) do not apply to the relationship between the parties. This is because [the Respondent] is a member of the owner’s family and uses the premises principally as a place of residence. 1 Therefore, the Applicant relies on section 65 of the RTA and asks the Tribunal to make an order for possession under this section. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 5(1)(n).

Should an order for possession be made in favour of the Applicant?

The law

Section 65 of the RTA states: (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 granted possession of the premises to the applicant. (2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall limit of 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 case of Simons and Holland Beckett Trustees no 11 as Trustees for the Newald Trust v McLean [2022] 4316762 sets out the correct test and considerations the Tribunal must take. The relevant questions to answer are: a. Are the premises residential? b. Who has the lawful right to grant a right of occupation? c. Has that person granted the occupant a right to occupy the premises? d. If not, is the occupant entitled to possession of the premises? Analysis
Applying the factors in Simons and Holland Beckett Trustees no 11 as Trustees for the Newald Trust v McLean [2022] 4316762, I make the following observations: a. Are the premises residential? Yes, the premises is a residential dwelling house. b. Who has the lawful right to grant a right of occupation? As executor of the owner’s estate, the Applicant has a lawful right to grant a right of occupation of the premises. c. Has that person granted the occupant a right to occupy the premises? No. I have not seen any evidence that the Applicant has granted [the Respondent] a right to occupy the premises. The evidence presented establishes the Applicant has asked [the Respondent] to leave the premises. d. If not, is the occupant entitled to possession of the premises? No. The will of the late [the Applicant] does not leave [the Respondent] a life interest or right to occupy the premises. [The Respondent] claims there are handwritten notes and other documents that differ from the will and which give her a right to occupy the premises. Examples of some of these documents were submitted. Probate has been granted in respect of the will, which means it is valid and binding. It is not the role of the Tribunal to question the validity of the will or grant of probate. No evidence in the form of a High Court judgement was submitted to suggest the will or grant of probate was not lawful. In the absence of this kind of evidence, I accept the validity of the will and grant of probate.
I am satisfied that a possession order must be granted in favour of the Applicant as against [the Respondent], and that is to have immediate effect. Filing fee and suppression
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. For the same reason, I must also grant their request for name suppression.
I have a discretion to grant the Respondent name suppression under section 95A(4) RTA. This section requires me to consider the interests of the parties and public. In Lewis v Wilson & Horton [2003] 3 NZLR 546 at paragraph 43, The Court of Appeal endorsed the approach taken in the High Court, which held: ...that the principle of open justice dictates that there should be no restriction on publication of information about a case ‘except in very special circumstances.’
The Applicant and Respondent are related and share similar last names, which are spelt slightly differently. If the Respondent’s name is published, this is likely to lead to the identification of the Applicant. It is in the public interest to grant the Respondent suppression in order to preserve the anonymity of the Applicant. For this reason, I order the Respondent’s name and identifying details be suppressed.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5389943 — net $28.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$28.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$28.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Applicant and Respondent’s name and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] is granted possession of the premises at 33 Takahe Street, Tikipunga, Whangarei 0112 immediately.
[The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $28.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 9 December 2025. The Applicant was represented by [the Applicant].
The Applicant has applied for a possession order under section 65 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The Applicant must prove their claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities. Background
[the Applicant] passed away on or about 3 March 2024 leaving six children: a. [the Applicant]. b. [the Applicant]. c. [the Applicant]. d. [the Applicant]. e. [the Applicant]. f. [the Applicant].
Probate was granted to [the Applicant] on 8 May 2024.
[the Applicant] owned the premises at 33 Takahe Street, Tikipunga, Whangarei 0112 (“the premises”), which now form part of her estate. For over ten years, [the Respondent] has lived at the premises with her children.
[The Respondent] claims she has agreed to give possession of the premises to the Applicant. The Applicant questions whether [the Respondent] will fulfil this promise and claims that similar promises have been made in the past and not honoured. [The Respondent] declined to allow the Tribunal to make an order for possession of the premises in favour of the Applicant by consent at the hearing.
The Applicant wants an order for possession of the premises to enable them to sell the premises and distribute the proceeds of sale according to the terms of the late [the Applicant’s] will.
Most of the provisions in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) do not apply to the relationship between the parties. This is because [the Respondent] is a member of the owner’s family and uses the premises principally as a place of residence. 1 Therefore, the Applicant relies on section 65 of the RTA and asks the Tribunal to make an order for possession under this section. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 5(1)(n).

Should an order for possession be made in favour of the Applicant?

The law

Section 65 of the RTA states: (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 granted possession of the premises to the applicant. (2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall limit of 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 case of Simons and Holland Beckett Trustees no 11 as Trustees for the Newald Trust v McLean [2022] 4316762 sets out the correct test and considerations the Tribunal must take. The relevant questions to answer are: a. Are the premises residential? b. Who has the lawful right to grant a right of occupation? c. Has that person granted the occupant a right to occupy the premises? d. If not, is the occupant entitled to possession of the premises? Analysis
Applying the factors in Simons and Holland Beckett Trustees no 11 as Trustees for the Newald Trust v McLean [2022] 4316762, I make the following observations: a. Are the premises residential? Yes, the premises is a residential dwelling house. b. Who has the lawful right to grant a right of occupation? As executor of the owner’s estate, the Applicant has a lawful right to grant a right of occupation of the premises. c. Has that person granted the occupant a right to occupy the premises? No. I have not seen any evidence that the Applicant has granted [the Respondent] a right to occupy the premises. The evidence presented establishes the Applicant has asked [the Respondent] to leave the premises. d. If not, is the occupant entitled to possession of the premises? No. The will of the late [the Applicant] does not leave [the Respondent] a life interest or right to occupy the premises. [The Respondent] claims there are handwritten notes and other documents that differ from the will and which give her a right to occupy the premises. Examples of some of these documents were submitted. Probate has been granted in respect of the will, which means it is valid and binding. It is not the role of the Tribunal to question the validity of the will or grant of probate. No evidence in the form of a High Court judgement was submitted to suggest the will or grant of probate was not lawful. In the absence of this kind of evidence, I accept the validity of the will and grant of probate.
I am satisfied that a possession order must be granted in favour of the Applicant as against [the Respondent], and that is to have immediate effect. Filing fee and suppression
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee. For the same reason, I must also grant their request for name suppression.
I have a discretion to grant the Respondent name suppression under section 95A(4) RTA. This section requires me to consider the interests of the parties and public. In Lewis v Wilson & Horton [2003] 3 NZLR 546 at paragraph 43, The Court of Appeal endorsed the approach taken in the High Court, which held: ...that the principle of open justice dictates that there should be no restriction on publication of information about a case ‘except in very special circumstances.’
The Applicant and Respondent are related and share similar last names, which are spelt slightly differently. If the Respondent’s name is published, this is likely to lead to the identification of the Applicant. It is in the public interest to grant the Respondent suppression in order to preserve the anonymity of the Applicant. For this reason, I order the Respondent’s name and identifying details be suppressed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5389943 — Tenancy dispute at 33 Takahe Street, Tikipunga, Whangarei 0112

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5389943 — Tenancy dispute at 33 Takahe Street, Tikipunga, Whangarei 0112

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should an order for possession be made in favour of the Applicant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Should an order for possession be made in favour of the Applicant?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions