Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5427320 — Boarding House
Decided 6 May 2026 · Published 6 May 2026 · Application 5427320
- Boarding House
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
S Young
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 name and identifying details.
- The application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the remote hearing.
- The sole issue for consideration by the Tribunal at this hearing was whether it has jurisdiction to hear the tenant’s application. Solely for ease of reference, I will refer to the parties in this order as “landlord” and “tenant.”
- The premises are on the outskirts of Queenstown. The premises are an attached two-level property. There are three bedrooms.
- The parties entered into a “Flat/house- sharing agreement” dated 24 September 2025 (“the agreement”). The agreement provides that the parties are not covered by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) and that any dispute will be referred to the Disputes Tribunal.
- The tenancy commenced on 27 September 2025.
- Despite being referred to as the “Head Tenant” in the agreement, the landlord confirmed at the hearing that he was in fact the owner of the premises.
- The landlord lived at the premises with his partner, young baby and his mother- in-law. The tenant had the exclusive use of one bedroom and the shared use of a bathroom, kitchen, laundry, dining room and lounge. Another tenant also lived in the third bedroom.
- The RTA Applies to every tenancy for residential purposes, except where specifically provided.
- One such statutory exception, which in my view is the focus of these proceedings, is s. 5.(1)(n) RTA. That section provides that the RTA will not apply where the premises, not being a boarding house, continue to be used, during the tenancy, principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the owner of the premises or by any member of the landlord’s for owner’s family.
- The onus of proving that the RTA does not apply is on the landlord.
- A number of issues are relevant to the Tribunal in determining the nature of the arrangement between the landlord and the tenant; These include; a) The extent of any shared living facilities (such as cooking, bathroom, living room and laundry). b) the extent of any free and unimpeded access by the tenant to premises occupied mainly by the landlord; and c) the nature of the tenant’s area and whether it was fully or partly self-contained or exclusive.
- Having reviewed the evidence, it would appear that the landlord used the premises principally as his place of residence ( along with his extended family) and that he simply took in boarders or flatmates in the two other rooms to help with costs. Facilities, with the exception of the landlord’s en-suite and bedroom, were shared.
- The factual background falls directly in line with the High Court decision in Cavanagh v Jackson [2025] NZHC 1491. The parties in this case were in a cooperative arrangement in which they were on the same footing, in that they had exclusive occupation of their own room and shared use of the common areas such as the kitchen and laundry. It was for all practical purposes akin to a flatting situation. The premises were used by the landlord during this tenancy principally as his place of residence and simply took in boarders to assist with costs. All parties shared facilities and each had exclusive use of their own bedrooms. The pre-eminent or principal use of the premises was as a residence for the owner and his family.
- I consider that the landlord has proven on the balance of probabilities that the tenancy was an excluded residential tenancy under s.5(1)(n) RTA . The application by the tenant is dismissed.
- The Disputes Tribunal may have jurisdiction to hear an application by the tenant. The tenant may wish to lodge a claim in that Tribunal. If he does, he should include a copy of this decision in his application to show that the Tribunal has found it does not have jurisdiction to hear the application.
- Both parties applied for name suppression. The landlord has been wholly successful in this hearing and suppression of the landlord’s name and details is ordered. The tenant has not been wholly or substantially successful in this hearing and the tenancy application for name suppression is dismissed.