Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5425696 — Tenancy dispute
Decided 2 Feb 2026 · Published 2 Feb 2026 · Application 5425696
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
R Harvey-Lane
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 landlord’s and tenant’s name and identifying details.
- The application is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing.
- The applicant has applied for possession of the premises.
- The applicant submits that they are the legal owners of the premises, and that despite asking the respondent to leave, and engaging with police and the council, the respondent has refused to do so. The applicant does not consider that the respondent has any right to occupy the premises, and there are escalating costs due to a failure of the respondent to make any payments.
- The respondent disputes all claims.
- Limited evidence and documentation have been provided by either party. Discussion
- Neither party asserted that a residential tenancy is in place, although, the Tribunal does not only deal with matters in which there is a residential tenancy.
- Section 65 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) gives the Tribunal the power to evict squatters or trespassers or people who do not have a right of occupation from residential premises, even if there is no residential tenancy.
- However, there are three conditions that need to be met, before the Tribunal can make a possession order in these circumstances: 1 a. The premises are residential premises. b. The applicant is entitled to possession. c. The other party is a squatter, trespasser, or is not in possession pursuant to any right of occupation granted by a person having lawful authority to do so.
- Section 5(1)(a) of the RTA states that the RTA shall not apply where the premises are commercial, which aligns with paragraph 8.a. above.
- At the hearing, both parties agreed that the premises were commercial. It was described as a single hall, that had previously had a kitchen and bathroom, and had been used for weekly meetings, akin to a community hall.
- Therefore, the first hurdle is not met, the premises are likely commercial, and the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider the claim for possession. It is not necessary or appropriate for me to consider the remaining conditions.
- The applicant will need to seek legal advice on the correct jurisdiction to file this claim in, such as in the District or High Court.
- The application is dismissed.
- I have, on my own accord, granted name suppression to both parties, having been satisfied that the privacy of the parties outweigh any public interest in publication. R Harvey-Lane 02 February 2026 1 Sergeant v Nigro and Tapsell [2019] NZHC 328 at [74].