What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5412873 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 5412873?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5412873?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5412873?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13053222-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5412873 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 5412873?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5412873?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5412873?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13053222-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5412873 — Tenancy dispute

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of all parties’ names and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] is granted possession of the premises at [Tenancy address suppressed] immediately.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application for a possession order under section 65 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
A hearing was scheduled for this afternoon, at [Event location suppressed]. The landlord appeared by telephone, having applied for telephone attendance in advance and that being approved, but there was no appearance by the respondent occupant.
The Applicant had filed fulsome written submissions in advance, and given the Occupant was not in attendance, [The applicant/s], confirmed the written submissions could be taken as read.

BACKGROUND

The application relates to premises at [Tenancy address suppressed] (the Premises). The premises were owned by [The deceased].
[The deceased] died in January 2019. Consistent with his will, and following a probate process, [The applicant/s] was appointed as the executor of the deceased estate (6 March 2019).
I note here that [The deceased]’s will records: I GIVE my house and land at [Tenancy address suppressed] together with the fitted floor coverings, blinds, curtains and light fittings in the property at my death free of all transfer costs, mortgages and other financial charges to be divided equally among my son [Beneficiary 1], my daughter [Beneficiary 2], my son [Beneficiary 3] and my son [Beneficiary 4] living at my death.
I note that title to the Premises is recorded as now sitting with [The applicant/s] as the registered owner.
[The applicant/s] approved [Beneficiary 1] (who from this point I will refer to as the Occupant), to live in the premises while the other beneficiaries decided what they wished to do with the property. However, a condition of that occupation was that the occupant pay the property outgoings, including rates, insurance and electricity. [The applicant/s] reports that those outgoings were not paid. [The applicant/s] have set out in the submissions the sums owed.
On 12 August 2025, [The applicant/s] wrote to the occupant, withdrawing any licence to reside in the premises, and giving him 42 days notice to vacate the Premises. The notice advises that if the Occupant fails to vacate, an application may be made with the Tribunal seeking an order of possession.
[The applicant/s] has applied to the Tribunal for a possession order under section
In summary, [The applicant/s]’s position is that it holds title to the premises, and while the occupant has previously resided there by way of a licence, that licence has been withdrawn, and there is no remaining lawful authority for the Occupant to now hold the property. [The applicant/s] say a possession order should be granted.

ANALYSIS

The Tribunal must consider whether a possession order under section 65 of the RTA can be ordered.
Section 65 of the RTA relates to the eviction of squatters. A squatter is a person in possession of premises when they are not a lawful tenant. Section 65 holds:
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). ... (3). To avoid doubt, the Tribunal has jurisdiction under this section even though the premises are not subject to a tenancy agreement.
Section 65 was considered by the High Court in Sergeant v Nigro and Tapsell [2019] NZHC 328. The Court held [at 74] that there are three conditions which have to be met before a possession order can be made: (a) The premises which are the subject of the application must be residential premises; and (b) The applicant for possession must be entitled to possession of those premises; and (c) Another person or persons are in possession as squatters, trespassers, or otherwise than pursuant to any right of occupation granted by a person having lawful authority to do so.
If the Applicant can prove (a) and (b) then the onus will move to the Respondent to prove on the balance of probabilities that they have a right of occupation granted by any person with lawful authority to grant it and that the right has not been terminated.
It is also relevant to note that the High Court in Sergeant v Nigro, in paragraphs [91], [92], [93] and [94] confirmed that the Tribunal is not entitled to take into account the fact that there may be a claim in another court when considering the possession application. Gordon J states at paragraph 94 of the decision “It is not open to the Tribunal to consider the fact of a claim or the contents of the claim in another court when deciding if the trustees were entitled to possession”.
I will now consider this application in light of the three factors noted above. a. Are the premises residential premises
Yes. The premises are a residential dwelling. b. Is the applicant entitled to possession
Yes. [The applicant/s] is recorded on the title as the owner of the premises. As the owner, [The applicant/s] naturally has a right of occupation. Certainly, an owner of property can lease, rent, or otherwise lawfully part with possession of the premises, in which case they would not have a right of possession. In this case, [The applicant/s] gave the Occupant a license to occupy, but that has been withdrawn. Based on the information I have available, I am satisfied that [The applicant/s] is entitled to possession of the Premises. c. Is another person in possession as a squatter, trespasser, or otherwise pursuant to a lawful right of occupation
Yes. I find that the occupant has possession of Premises without any established lawful right. The obligation to establish that he has lawful authority to live in the Premises is on the Occupant, and he has not proven a right to possess exists. Whether classed as a squatter or a trespasser, I am satisfied that the occupant is lawfully in possession of the premises.
I record for completeness that while I accept the occupant is also a beneficiary of the will, that does not give him a right to continue living in the premises.
The criteria to order possession of the premises be given to [The applicant/s] is met, and that order is made.
Name suppression has been requested. In the circumstances, name suppression is ordered for all parties mentioned in this order.

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of all parties’ names and identifying details.
[The landlord/s] is granted possession of the premises at [Tenancy address suppressed] immediately.

Reasons

The Tribunal must consider an application for a possession order under section 65 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
A hearing was scheduled for this afternoon, at [Event location suppressed]. The landlord appeared by telephone, having applied for telephone attendance in advance and that being approved, but there was no appearance by the respondent occupant.
The Applicant had filed fulsome written submissions in advance, and given the Occupant was not in attendance, [The applicant/s], confirmed the written submissions could be taken as read.

BACKGROUND

The application relates to premises at [Tenancy address suppressed] (the Premises). The premises were owned by [The deceased].
[The deceased] died in January 2019. Consistent with his will, and following a probate process, [The applicant/s] was appointed as the executor of the deceased estate (6 March 2019).
I note here that [The deceased]’s will records: I GIVE my house and land at [Tenancy address suppressed] together with the fitted floor coverings, blinds, curtains and light fittings in the property at my death free of all transfer costs, mortgages and other financial charges to be divided equally among my son [Beneficiary 1], my daughter [Beneficiary 2], my son [Beneficiary 3] and my son [Beneficiary 4] living at my death.
I note that title to the Premises is recorded as now sitting with [The applicant/s] as the registered owner.
[The applicant/s] approved [Beneficiary 1] (who from this point I will refer to as the Occupant), to live in the premises while the other beneficiaries decided what they wished to do with the property. However, a condition of that occupation was that the occupant pay the property outgoings, including rates, insurance and electricity. [The applicant/s] reports that those outgoings were not paid. [The applicant/s] have set out in the submissions the sums owed.
On 12 August 2025, [The applicant/s] wrote to the occupant, withdrawing any licence to reside in the premises, and giving him 42 days notice to vacate the Premises. The notice advises that if the Occupant fails to vacate, an application may be made with the Tribunal seeking an order of possession.
[The applicant/s] has applied to the Tribunal for a possession order under section
In summary, [The applicant/s]’s position is that it holds title to the premises, and while the occupant has previously resided there by way of a licence, that licence has been withdrawn, and there is no remaining lawful authority for the Occupant to now hold the property. [The applicant/s] say a possession order should be granted.

ANALYSIS

The Tribunal must consider whether a possession order under section 65 of the RTA can be ordered.
Section 65 of the RTA relates to the eviction of squatters. A squatter is a person in possession of premises when they are not a lawful tenant. Section 65 holds:
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). ... (3). To avoid doubt, the Tribunal has jurisdiction under this section even though the premises are not subject to a tenancy agreement.
Section 65 was considered by the High Court in Sergeant v Nigro and Tapsell [2019] NZHC 328. The Court held [at 74] that there are three conditions which have to be met before a possession order can be made: (a) The premises which are the subject of the application must be residential premises; and (b) The applicant for possession must be entitled to possession of those premises; and (c) Another person or persons are in possession as squatters, trespassers, or otherwise than pursuant to any right of occupation granted by a person having lawful authority to do so.
If the Applicant can prove (a) and (b) then the onus will move to the Respondent to prove on the balance of probabilities that they have a right of occupation granted by any person with lawful authority to grant it and that the right has not been terminated.
It is also relevant to note that the High Court in Sergeant v Nigro, in paragraphs [91], [92], [93] and [94] confirmed that the Tribunal is not entitled to take into account the fact that there may be a claim in another court when considering the possession application. Gordon J states at paragraph 94 of the decision “It is not open to the Tribunal to consider the fact of a claim or the contents of the claim in another court when deciding if the trustees were entitled to possession”.
I will now consider this application in light of the three factors noted above. a. Are the premises residential premises
Yes. The premises are a residential dwelling. b. Is the applicant entitled to possession
Yes. [The applicant/s] is recorded on the title as the owner of the premises. As the owner, [The applicant/s] naturally has a right of occupation. Certainly, an owner of property can lease, rent, or otherwise lawfully part with possession of the premises, in which case they would not have a right of possession. In this case, [The applicant/s] gave the Occupant a license to occupy, but that has been withdrawn. Based on the information I have available, I am satisfied that [The applicant/s] is entitled to possession of the Premises. c. Is another person in possession as a squatter, trespasser, or otherwise pursuant to a lawful right of occupation
Yes. I find that the occupant has possession of Premises without any established lawful right. The obligation to establish that he has lawful authority to live in the Premises is on the Occupant, and he has not proven a right to possess exists. Whether classed as a squatter or a trespasser, I am satisfied that the occupant is lawfully in possession of the premises.
I record for completeness that while I accept the occupant is also a beneficiary of the will, that does not give him a right to continue living in the premises.
The criteria to order possession of the premises be given to [The applicant/s] is met, and that order is made.
Name suppression has been requested. In the circumstances, name suppression is ordered for all parties mentioned in this order.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5412873 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5412873 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

ANALYSIS

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

BACKGROUND

ANALYSIS

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions