What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5407609 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 5407609?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5407609?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5407609?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13107750-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5407609 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 5407609?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5407609?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5407609?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13107750-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5407609 — Tenancy dispute

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the applicant’s and respondent’s name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The applicant has applied for a refund of the deposit or bond paid. The respondent has a claim to the deposit/bond however no cross application has been filed. Background
On around 27 February 2020 the applicant entered into a lease agreement (“the agreement”).
The agreement stated that occupation was for the tenancy address and including approximately 4.8564 hectares of land. It was a two-year lease with a right of renewal for a further 4 years.
The agreement provided for an annual rent of $70,200.00 and included a 4-week bond of $5,400.00 to be held until the end of the lease. Dates were specified for scheduled rent reviews.
There is no reference to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) in the agreement. The agreement instead states that any dispute as to lease covenants is to be determined by the nominee of the President in the District Law Society of the district in which the premises are located.
In April 2022, the property was sold subject to the lease. Lawyers for the new owners advised the applicant that in accordance with the scheduled rent review in the agreement, the rent would increase to $120,000.00 per annum.
As a result of this increase, the applicant gave notice to end the lease and left the property.
The applicant had rights of occupation of the entire property. This included a four-bedroom, two-level house (approximately 377sqm), the entire 4.8564 hectares of land and around 1000 sqm of sheds.
The applicant used the expansive sheds for operating a building business (including for example, building supplies and contracting for retaining walls and decking). The land was also used by the applicant for having around half a dozen beef cows that rotated around paddocks as well as for business related storage.
The upstairs of the house was used by the applicant to live in, but the downstairs lounge area operated as an office for the applicant’s business operations. The kitchen and bathroom facilities were likely shared between both personal/residential and business/commercial use.
The property manager who attended for the respondent considered that the arrangement was commercial and submitted that the residential use was ancillary to the commercial purpose. They also said that the occupation would not have existed or would not have been palatable for the applicant, if not for the land and sheds for business purposes.
The bond payment is currently held by the property manager.
The applicant was unclear of the intention at the commencement of the arrangement, he was self-employed and simply needed a property he could run his business from as well as reside.

Is there a residential tenancy?

The law

The first question to consider is whether the respondent’s occupation of the property was a tenancy pursuant to the RTA.
Section 77(1) of the RTA provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the RTA applies.
Section 2(1) of the RTA defines a landlord as the grantor of a tenancy under a tenancy agreement of residential premises. A tenant is the grantee of the tenancy and where appropriate includes a lawful successor in title of a landlord to the premises.
The terms “residential premises’, ‘tenancy’, and ‘tenancy agreement’ are defined in section s2(1) of the RTA as: a. Residential premises means 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. b. Tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent; and includes any tenancy of residential premises implied or created by any enactments; and where appropriate, also includes a former tenancy. c. Tenancy agreement, in relationship to any residential premises means any express or implied agreement under which any person, for rent, grants or agrees to grant to any other person a tenancy of the premises; and, where appropriate includes a former tenancy agreement and any variation of the tenancy agreement.
Section 5(1) of the RTA, states that the Act shall not apply in the following circumstances: a. Where the premises are commercial premises. b. Where the whole or a substantial part of the tenant’s income is derived from the use of the premises for agricultural, pastoral, horticultural, or other purposes.
Section 2(3) of the RTA states that: For the purposes of this Act, where any premises that are subject to a legal or an equitable lease are used for both commercial and residential purposes, the premises shall be deemed to be residential premises unless it is proved that the premises were let principally for purposes other than residential purposes. Discussion
The applicant’s occupation is plainly both commercial and residential.
The test therefore is whether the premises were let principally for purposes other than residential purposes, 1 and secondly, whether the whole or a substantial part of the applicant’s income was derived from the use of the premises. 1 Main v Main [2007] NZCA 306.
Having considered the evidence and the applicant’s use of the premises, I am satisfied that the property was let primarily for commercial purposes and the applicant’s residential use was incidental to that principal purpose. 2
In the overall context of the land and buildings, the part occupied by the applicant for residential purposes was minor compared to the part occupied for the purpose of commercial operations.
In addition, a substantial part (if not all) of the applicant’s income was derived from the use of the land, both from beef cattle, the operation of a building/contracting business from the expansive sheds, and administrative operation from the lower level of the house.
It follows that the RTA does not apply.
The parties will need to resolve the dispute utilising the dispute clause in the agreement or through another jurisdiction.
I have on my own accord granted name suppression to both parties due to finding this is not a tenancy subject to the RTA. Any benefit to the public in the decision can still be achieved without the publication of names. See section 95A of the RTA. R Harvey-Lane 11 February 2026 2 Ibid, at [13].

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the applicant’s and respondent’s name and identifying details.
The application is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing.
The applicant has applied for a refund of the deposit or bond paid. The respondent has a claim to the deposit/bond however no cross application has been filed. Background
On around 27 February 2020 the applicant entered into a lease agreement (“the agreement”).
The agreement stated that occupation was for the tenancy address and including approximately 4.8564 hectares of land. It was a two-year lease with a right of renewal for a further 4 years.
The agreement provided for an annual rent of $70,200.00 and included a 4-week bond of $5,400.00 to be held until the end of the lease. Dates were specified for scheduled rent reviews.
There is no reference to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) in the agreement. The agreement instead states that any dispute as to lease covenants is to be determined by the nominee of the President in the District Law Society of the district in which the premises are located.
In April 2022, the property was sold subject to the lease. Lawyers for the new owners advised the applicant that in accordance with the scheduled rent review in the agreement, the rent would increase to $120,000.00 per annum.
As a result of this increase, the applicant gave notice to end the lease and left the property.
The applicant had rights of occupation of the entire property. This included a four-bedroom, two-level house (approximately 377sqm), the entire 4.8564 hectares of land and around 1000 sqm of sheds.
The applicant used the expansive sheds for operating a building business (including for example, building supplies and contracting for retaining walls and decking). The land was also used by the applicant for having around half a dozen beef cows that rotated around paddocks as well as for business related storage.
The upstairs of the house was used by the applicant to live in, but the downstairs lounge area operated as an office for the applicant’s business operations. The kitchen and bathroom facilities were likely shared between both personal/residential and business/commercial use.
The property manager who attended for the respondent considered that the arrangement was commercial and submitted that the residential use was ancillary to the commercial purpose. They also said that the occupation would not have existed or would not have been palatable for the applicant, if not for the land and sheds for business purposes.
The bond payment is currently held by the property manager.
The applicant was unclear of the intention at the commencement of the arrangement, he was self-employed and simply needed a property he could run his business from as well as reside.

Is there a residential tenancy?

The law

The first question to consider is whether the respondent’s occupation of the property was a tenancy pursuant to the RTA.
Section 77(1) of the RTA provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the RTA applies.
Section 2(1) of the RTA defines a landlord as the grantor of a tenancy under a tenancy agreement of residential premises. A tenant is the grantee of the tenancy and where appropriate includes a lawful successor in title of a landlord to the premises.
The terms “residential premises’, ‘tenancy’, and ‘tenancy agreement’ are defined in section s2(1) of the RTA as: a. Residential premises means 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. b. Tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent; and includes any tenancy of residential premises implied or created by any enactments; and where appropriate, also includes a former tenancy. c. Tenancy agreement, in relationship to any residential premises means any express or implied agreement under which any person, for rent, grants or agrees to grant to any other person a tenancy of the premises; and, where appropriate includes a former tenancy agreement and any variation of the tenancy agreement.
Section 5(1) of the RTA, states that the Act shall not apply in the following circumstances: a. Where the premises are commercial premises. b. Where the whole or a substantial part of the tenant’s income is derived from the use of the premises for agricultural, pastoral, horticultural, or other purposes.
Section 2(3) of the RTA states that: For the purposes of this Act, where any premises that are subject to a legal or an equitable lease are used for both commercial and residential purposes, the premises shall be deemed to be residential premises unless it is proved that the premises were let principally for purposes other than residential purposes. Discussion
The applicant’s occupation is plainly both commercial and residential.
The test therefore is whether the premises were let principally for purposes other than residential purposes, 1 and secondly, whether the whole or a substantial part of the applicant’s income was derived from the use of the premises. 1 Main v Main [2007] NZCA 306.
Having considered the evidence and the applicant’s use of the premises, I am satisfied that the property was let primarily for commercial purposes and the applicant’s residential use was incidental to that principal purpose. 2
In the overall context of the land and buildings, the part occupied by the applicant for residential purposes was minor compared to the part occupied for the purpose of commercial operations.
In addition, a substantial part (if not all) of the applicant’s income was derived from the use of the land, both from beef cattle, the operation of a building/contracting business from the expansive sheds, and administrative operation from the lower level of the house.
It follows that the RTA does not apply.
The parties will need to resolve the dispute utilising the dispute clause in the agreement or through another jurisdiction.
I have on my own accord granted name suppression to both parties due to finding this is not a tenancy subject to the RTA. Any benefit to the public in the decision can still be achieved without the publication of names. See section 95A of the RTA. R Harvey-Lane 11 February 2026 2 Ibid, at [13].

Tenancy Tribunal case 5407609 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5407609 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is there a residential tenancy?

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Is there a residential tenancy?

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions