Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5407829 — Rent arrears
Decided 9 Mar 2026 · Published 9 Mar 2026 · Application 5407829
- Rent arrears
Party names are redacted in the official published order. This page summarises the dispute only — not individual identities.
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Adjudicator
A Aiolupotea
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
No individual claim amounts were reconciled for this order. View the official Ministry of Justice PDF for full detail.
Order
- An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Respondents name and identifying details.
- The application is dismissed.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- Also present was Mrs Cecil-Samatua, the registered owner of the property (who attended by telephone from the Cook Islands). Mrs Cecil-Samatua is the mother of the Applicant, Ms Muriel Samatua (“Ms Samatua”).
- Ms Samatua’s (advocate), [Tenant 1] (Mrs Cecil-Samatua’s [redacted]).and [Tenant 2] were present. Mrs Samatua provided documents to show she is Mrs Cecil-Samatua’s current Attorney under a Power of Attorney.
- The application before the Tribunal was filed by Ms Samatua on behalf of Mrs Cecil-Samatua.
- The Applicant claimed termination of the tenancy and payment of rent arrears.
- A cross-application was filed by [Tenant 1], who was previously appointed as Mrs Cecil- Samatua’s Attorney. [Tenant 1] is the [redacted] of the [Tenant 2]. [Tenant 1] filed documentation to confirm his Power of Attorney. [Tenant 1] seeks dismissal of the termination application filed on behalf of Mrs Cecil- Samatua. Background
- This tenancy exists within a wider and longstanding family dispute. There is clear evidence of ongoing conflict between [redacted], particularly in relation to control and management of Mrs Cecil-Samatua’s properties. That conflict appears to have significantly contributed to the present proceedings. The parties previously came before the Tribunal in 2024 (Case reference NZTT 4722630)
- Mrs Cecil-Samatua also owns the property at [Tenancy address suppressed]. [The tenant/s] has lived at [address suppressed] since 2019. Initially, she entered into a tenancy agreement with Mrs Cecil-Samatua’s late husband, Mr John Samatua. He passed away in October 2019.
- [Tenant 2] entered into a tenancy agreement with Mrs Cecil-Samatua on or about 11 February 2019. There were a few proforma tenancy agreements provided however it appeared not all of the pages were sent through so the evidence was confusing as to when the actual agreements commenced. A copy of the agreement entered into on 11 February 2019 was produced at the hearing. The agreement records rent of $450.00 per week payable to Mrs Cecil- Samatua.
- [Tenant 2] states that she initially paid rent weekly to Mrs Cecil-Samatua however later paid this in lump sums, and thereafter re-directed payments to [Tenant 1]. [Tenant 1] states he applied those funds toward maintenance and expenses relating to Mrs Cecil-Samatua’s other property at [Tenancy address suppressed]. [Tenant 1] states that he held Power of Attorney for Mrs Cecil- Samatua and produced a document dated 16 December 2022 in support of that position. At the hearing, Mrs Cecil-Samatua stated that she did not agree to rent payments being re-directed to [Tenant 1].
- [Tenant 2] gave evidence that Mr Samatua advised her she could live at the property indefinitely. She produced a handwritten note dated 13 June 2019 stating that a 90-day termination notice (due to end on 17 June 2019) was cancelled and that “[Tenant 2] can rent [location suppressed] as long as she wants to reside at that address.” The letter was signed by Mr Samatua and [Tenant 2].
- Mrs Cecil-Samatua stated at the hearing that she never agreed to [Tenant 2] residing at the property indefinitely and does not recall her husband ever telling her that. She made it clear at the hearing, that she did not want to pursue the rent arrears but wanted to terminate [Tenant 2]’s tenancy and gain possession of the property. It appeared this tenancy was the cause of a lot of tension within the family,
- It also appeared the power of attorney was a source of contention within the family when Mrs Cecil-Samatua revoked [Tenant 1]’s Power of Attorney. He questioned her about this and raised concerns about how Mrs Cecil-Samatua’s properties, including [address redacted], were being maintained and funded. The hearing however was not the appropriate forum for [Tenant 1] to confront Mrs Cecil-Samatua about these issues.
- [Tenant 2] opposes the termination. She submits that the eviction was the consequence of the wider family dispute and that it is unfair for her to be to vacate because of the dispute.
- It was apparent from the evidence that there are numerous underlying family disagreements concerning financial management, authority under powers of attorney, and the use of rental income for another property. However, those broader family issues are not matters for determination by this Tribunal. The Tribunal’s role is confined to determining the tenancy issues in accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act. The law
- There is a preliminary issue whether the Tribunal can hear the claim. Section 77(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims between landlords and tenants relating to any tenancy to which the Act applies. Section 4 RTA provides that the Act applies to all residential tenancies unless specifically excluded.
- Section 2(1) 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. The terms ’residential premises’, ‘tenancy’, and ‘tenancy agreement’ are defined as: 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 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 enactment; and, where appropriate, also includes a former tenancy tenancy agreement, in relation 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 a tenancy agreement
- Section 5 RTA sets out a variety of circumstances where a tenancy is excluded from the Act. Section 10 RTA provides that, where a party to proceedings contends that the Act does not apply, they must establish the facts supporting their contention. In other words, they have the burden of proving the Act does not apply.
- Section 5(1)(n) RTA excludes the RTA where the premises used during the tenancy, principally as a place of residence by the Landlord or by a member of the Landlords family.
- On 2 February 2024, Mrs Cecil-Samatua filed an application in the Tenancy Tribunal (NZTT 4722630) against [Tenant 2] and [Tenant 1]. At that time, both [Tenant 2] and [Tenant 1] were residing at the property, Adjudicator Singh determined that, notwithstanding the existence of a signed pro-forma tenancy agreement and the payment of rent by [Tenant 1] and [Tenant 2], the arrangement was properly characterised as a family arrangement rather than a tenancy agreement within the meaning of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. As a result, the application was dismissed because the Tribunal had no jurisdiction.
- Having considered the evidence before me, I find that the living arrangements have not materially changed since the previous Tribunal decision in 2024. [Tenant 2] resides at the property pursuant to the written tenancy agreement. [Tenant 1] also resides at the property as his principal place of residence. [Tenant 1] is a [redacted] of Mrs Cecil-Samatuas [redacted]. Where premises are occupied by a member of the landlord’s family as their principal place of residence, the arrangement falls within the exclusion set out in section 5(1)(n) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. In these circumstances, the tenancy is excluded from the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
- The application is dismissed.
- Should Mrs Cecil-Samatua wish to pursue possession, she may need to seek relief in a different Tribunal or via an alternate legal avenue.
- As the Tenant has been successful in defending the application, an order for name suppression is granted in respect of the Respondent [Tenant 2] and [Tenant 1].