What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5394781?

The tribunal order states: Tom Rodewald As Liquidator Of Waitotara Farms Limited (In Liquidation) is

How much money was awarded in case 5394781?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5394781?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5394781?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12953346-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5394781?

The tribunal order states: Tom Rodewald As Liquidator Of Waitotara Farms Limited (In Liquidation) is

How much money was awarded in case 5394781?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5394781?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5394781?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12953346-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

1179 Tahuna Road, Waiterimu, RD 4, Waiterimu 3784 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5394781 — Tenancy dispute

Order

Tom Rodewald As Liquidator Of Waitotara Farms Limited (In Liquidation) is granted possession of the premises at 1179 Tahuna Road, Waiterimu, RD 4, Waiterimu 3784 at 11.59 am on Thursday 22 January 2026.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing on 12 January 2026.
The applicant was represented by Ms Scott. The respondent was represented by the respondent’s husband.
The applicant has applied for possession of the premises pursuant to s.64 Residential Tenancies Act 1096 (“RTA”).
The relevant parts of s.64 RTA provide; (1) ......on the application of any person entitled to possession of the premises following the termination of a tenancy, the Tribunal shall make an order granting possession of the premises to that person. (2) No possession order may be made more than 90 days after the date of the termination of the tenancy.
Section 65 RTA provides; (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... (3) To avoid doubt, the Tribunal has jurisdiction under the section even though the premises are not subject to a tenancy agreement.
There are essentially three issues for the Tribunal to consider; (i)Are the premises in question “residential premises”? (ii)Is the applicant entitled to possession of the residential premises? (iii)Is the respondent in possession of the residential premises otherwise that pursuant to any right of occupation granted by any person having lawful authority to grant the right of possession?
The premises in question are at 1179 Tahuna Road, Waiterimu (“the premises”). They form part of a larger farm block. The premises consist of a residential home and curtilage. The respondent resides at the premises with her husband and has done so for some time. No issue was taken by the parties as to the residential nature of the premises. I find that the premises in question are residential premises.
In deciding if the applicant is entitled to possession, I have taken into consideration both the record of title to the premises and the High Court order appointing Tom Rodewald as the liquidator of Waitotara Farms Limited.
The Respondent has provided copies of guaranteed searches of the records of title. The relevant premises are included in those searches. All searches show the registered owner as being Waitotara Farms Limited.
The High Court, by order dated 17 April 2025, placed Waitotara Farms Limited into liquidation and appointed Thomas Lee Rodewald as the liquidator pursuant to s.241(1)(4)(d) of the Companies Act 1993.
The concept of indefeasibility of title applies to the system of recording ownership of land in New Zealand. It essentially means that a registered owners title is guaranteed and generally cannot be challenged or overturned by unregistered claims. An exception to the rule, is where there has been a fraud by the registered owner.
The respondent challenges that ownership and says that in December 2023 an agreement for sale and purchase of the premises was signed between Keith Stark of Kellin Farms Limited (a major shareholder of land which includes the premises) and Kathy Lee Reid.
A statement was provided from Kathy Reid. She says in her statement that payment of the purchase proceeds was made to a “crown bank account” with Westpac. The respondent says that at this point, the tenancy agreement held by Keilin Farms was assigned to Kathy Reid, who entered into another tenancy agreement with the respondent. That is the tenancy agreement relied upon by the respondent.
The Tribunal is not bound by the usual laws of evidence. Any evidence can be accepted. What is of importance is the weight that may be attached to the evidence. Generally, the evidence of a witness who attends the hearing and is made available for questioning, will carry more weight than a written statement placed before the Tribunal.
No acceptable documentary evidence was provided to support the propositions contained in the statements of Kathy Reid and her financier Yve North. Documentary evidence to support the substantial payments which the respondent says were made, should have been relatively simple to obtain. In particular, I would have expected to see a copy of the agreement for sale and purchase for the property and copies of receipts for payments or deposits made.
At the hearing, the respondent said that he would be able to obtain those documents and sought an adjournment. I noted from the Tenancy Services file that the application had been filed by the applicant on 21 November 2025. Notice of the hearing had been sent by post to the respondent on 17 December 2025 .The respondent was able to provide detailed and lengthy statements from both Ms Reid and Ms North to the Tribunal prior to this hearing. The application for an adjournment made by the respondent at the hearing was declined.
Having reviewed the evidence filed by the parties, the evidence received at the hearing, and for the reasons given above, I prefer the evidence of the applicant, that the applicant is entitled to possession of the premises. Further, the respondent has failed to persuade me that they are in possession of the premises pursuant to a right granted by someone having lawful authority to grant that possession.
The tenancy ended on 20 November 2025, when any rights which the applicant may have had to possession were brought to an end by the notice to terminate the tenancy. That is less than 90 days ago. The requirements of section 64(1) RTA are satisfied.
Generally, a possession order is made by the Tribunal to take effect immediately. I am conscious that the respondent is an elderly lady in poor health. I have extended the date accordingly. Possession is granted to the applicant at 11.59 am on Thursday 22 January 2026.
The tenant applied for name suppression. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing. The application for name suppression is accordingly dismissed.

Order

Tom Rodewald As Liquidator Of Waitotara Farms Limited (In Liquidation) is granted possession of the premises at 1179 Tahuna Road, Waiterimu, RD 4, Waiterimu 3784 at 11.59 am on Thursday 22 January 2026.

Reasons

Both parties attended the remote hearing on 12 January 2026.
The applicant was represented by Ms Scott. The respondent was represented by the respondent’s husband.
The applicant has applied for possession of the premises pursuant to s.64 Residential Tenancies Act 1096 (“RTA”).
The relevant parts of s.64 RTA provide; (1) ......on the application of any person entitled to possession of the premises following the termination of a tenancy, the Tribunal shall make an order granting possession of the premises to that person. (2) No possession order may be made more than 90 days after the date of the termination of the tenancy.
Section 65 RTA provides; (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... (3) To avoid doubt, the Tribunal has jurisdiction under the section even though the premises are not subject to a tenancy agreement.
There are essentially three issues for the Tribunal to consider; (i)Are the premises in question “residential premises”? (ii)Is the applicant entitled to possession of the residential premises? (iii)Is the respondent in possession of the residential premises otherwise that pursuant to any right of occupation granted by any person having lawful authority to grant the right of possession?
The premises in question are at 1179 Tahuna Road, Waiterimu (“the premises”). They form part of a larger farm block. The premises consist of a residential home and curtilage. The respondent resides at the premises with her husband and has done so for some time. No issue was taken by the parties as to the residential nature of the premises. I find that the premises in question are residential premises.
In deciding if the applicant is entitled to possession, I have taken into consideration both the record of title to the premises and the High Court order appointing Tom Rodewald as the liquidator of Waitotara Farms Limited.
The Respondent has provided copies of guaranteed searches of the records of title. The relevant premises are included in those searches. All searches show the registered owner as being Waitotara Farms Limited.
The High Court, by order dated 17 April 2025, placed Waitotara Farms Limited into liquidation and appointed Thomas Lee Rodewald as the liquidator pursuant to s.241(1)(4)(d) of the Companies Act 1993.
The concept of indefeasibility of title applies to the system of recording ownership of land in New Zealand. It essentially means that a registered owners title is guaranteed and generally cannot be challenged or overturned by unregistered claims. An exception to the rule, is where there has been a fraud by the registered owner.
The respondent challenges that ownership and says that in December 2023 an agreement for sale and purchase of the premises was signed between Keith Stark of Kellin Farms Limited (a major shareholder of land which includes the premises) and Kathy Lee Reid.
A statement was provided from Kathy Reid. She says in her statement that payment of the purchase proceeds was made to a “crown bank account” with Westpac. The respondent says that at this point, the tenancy agreement held by Keilin Farms was assigned to Kathy Reid, who entered into another tenancy agreement with the respondent. That is the tenancy agreement relied upon by the respondent.
The Tribunal is not bound by the usual laws of evidence. Any evidence can be accepted. What is of importance is the weight that may be attached to the evidence. Generally, the evidence of a witness who attends the hearing and is made available for questioning, will carry more weight than a written statement placed before the Tribunal.
No acceptable documentary evidence was provided to support the propositions contained in the statements of Kathy Reid and her financier Yve North. Documentary evidence to support the substantial payments which the respondent says were made, should have been relatively simple to obtain. In particular, I would have expected to see a copy of the agreement for sale and purchase for the property and copies of receipts for payments or deposits made.
At the hearing, the respondent said that he would be able to obtain those documents and sought an adjournment. I noted from the Tenancy Services file that the application had been filed by the applicant on 21 November 2025. Notice of the hearing had been sent by post to the respondent on 17 December 2025 .The respondent was able to provide detailed and lengthy statements from both Ms Reid and Ms North to the Tribunal prior to this hearing. The application for an adjournment made by the respondent at the hearing was declined.
Having reviewed the evidence filed by the parties, the evidence received at the hearing, and for the reasons given above, I prefer the evidence of the applicant, that the applicant is entitled to possession of the premises. Further, the respondent has failed to persuade me that they are in possession of the premises pursuant to a right granted by someone having lawful authority to grant that possession.
The tenancy ended on 20 November 2025, when any rights which the applicant may have had to possession were brought to an end by the notice to terminate the tenancy. That is less than 90 days ago. The requirements of section 64(1) RTA are satisfied.
Generally, a possession order is made by the Tribunal to take effect immediately. I am conscious that the respondent is an elderly lady in poor health. I have extended the date accordingly. Possession is granted to the applicant at 11.59 am on Thursday 22 January 2026.
The tenant applied for name suppression. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing. The application for name suppression is accordingly dismissed.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5394781 — Tenancy dispute at 1179 Tahuna Road, Waiterimu, RD 4, Waiterimu 3784

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5394781 — Tenancy dispute at 1179 Tahuna Road, Waiterimu, RD 4, Waiterimu 3784

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions