What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5483414 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 5483414?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5483414?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5483414?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13542740-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5483414 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 5483414?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5483414?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5483414?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13542740-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

3 Taffe St, Kaitaia 0410 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5483414 — Tenancy dispute

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the name and identifying details of the landlord’s representative at the hearing.
is granted possession of the premises at immediately.

Reasons

Background

The premises is [redacted]. [Redacted] properties have been managed by [The agent] since 2016.
This property [redacted]. It is not subject to any lease, tenancy, or license to occupy.
At an inspection on 26 February 2026, [the agent] discovered persons occupying the property unlawfully.
[The agent] served trespass notices on two persons at the property on 3 March 2026.
[The agent’s] application seeks an order for possession. Law
The Tenancy Tribunal has the power to grant an order for possession where: 1 a. The premises are residential premises; and b. The person seeking the order is entitled to possession of the premises; and c. Any person in possession of the premises is occupying as a squatter or trespasser.
The Tenancy Tribunal has the power to make an order for possession even where there is no tenancy agreement. Findings

Are the premises residential premises?

[The agent] acknowledges that the premises are commercial. They are not intended for residential use.
However, the definition of “residential premises” in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 is: 2 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 premises is or would be unlawful
The definition includes premises that are in fact occupied residentially, not just premises that are intended for that purpose.
These commercial premises are not intended for residing in, but the squatters are in fact using them for that purpose. As explicitly stated in the definition, it does not matter that their actions are unlawful.
This broad definition means that every instance of a squatter occupying any premises will meet the RTA definition of “residential premises”, which seems in tension with the fact the wording of section 65(1) – that the premises must be residential premises – is intended to be a limitation.
However, I must apply the RTA definition of residential premises, and I note that the Tribunal has come to the same conclusion in previous decisions involving squatters at commercial premises. 3 1 Section 65(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 “RTA” 2 Section 2 RTA 3 For example, Montrose Foundry Ltd v Garland [2025 NZTT 5196153 Is [the agent] entitled to possession of the premises
[The agent] has proven that: a. [Redacted] owns the land and buildings at this address. b. The property is [redacted]. c. [The agent] is empowered to manage [redacted].
Therefore, I find that [the agent] is entitled to possession of the premises. Are the persons at the premises occupying as squatters / trespassers
There is no evidence that [the agent] has granted any person the legal right to occupy the premises.
The squatters have not asserted any legal right to occupy or provided any evidence of any such right.
Therefore, I find that the occupiers are squatters / trespassers Outcome and name suppression
The application is successful. I have made an order for immediate possession.
[The agent] sought name suppression of the name and details of its representative at the hearing. Name suppression is granted. 4

Reasons

Background

The premises is [redacted]. [Redacted] properties have been managed by [The agent] since 2016.

This property [redacted]. It is not subject to any lease, tenancy, or license to occupy.

At an inspection on 26 February 2026, [the agent] discovered persons occupying the property unlawfully.

[The agent] served trespass notices on two persons at the property on 3 March 2026.

[The agent’s] application seeks an order for possession. Law

The Tenancy Tribunal has the power to grant an order for possession where: 1 a. The premises are residential premises; and b. The person seeking the order is entitled to possession of the premises; and c. Any person in possession of the premises is occupying as a squatter or trespasser.

The Tenancy Tribunal has the power to make an order for possession even where there is no tenancy agreement. Findings

Are the premises residential premises?

[The agent] acknowledges that the premises are commercial. They are not intended for residential use.

However, the definition of “residential premises” in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 is: 2 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 premises is or would be unlawful

The definition includes premises that are in fact occupied residentially, not just premises that are intended for that purpose.

These commercial premises are not intended for residing in, but the squatters are in fact using them for that purpose. As explicitly stated in the definition, it does not matter that their actions are unlawful.

This broad definition means that every instance of a squatter occupying any premises will meet the RTA definition of “residential premises”, which seems in tension with the fact the wording of section 65(1) – that the premises must be residential premises – is intended to be a limitation.

However, I must apply the RTA definition of residential premises, and I note that the Tribunal has come to the same conclusion in previous decisions involving squatters at commercial premises. 3 1 Section 65(1) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 “RTA” 2 Section 2 RTA 3 For example, Montrose Foundry Ltd v Garland [2025 NZTT 5196153 Is [the agent] entitled to possession of the premises

[The agent] has proven that: a. [Redacted] owns the land and buildings at this address. b. The property is [redacted]. c. [The agent] is empowered to manage [redacted].

Therefore, I find that [the agent] is entitled to possession of the premises. Are the persons at the premises occupying as squatters / trespassers

There is no evidence that [the agent] has granted any person the legal right to occupy the premises.

The squatters have not asserted any legal right to occupy or provided any evidence of any such right.

Therefore, I find that the occupiers are squatters / trespassers Outcome and name suppression

The application is successful. I have made an order for immediate possession.

[The agent] sought name suppression of the name and details of its representative at the hearing. Name suppression is granted. 4

Tenancy Tribunal case 5483414 — Tenancy dispute at 3 Taffe St, Kaitaia 0410

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5483414 — Tenancy dispute at 3 Taffe St, Kaitaia 0410

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the premises residential premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Are the premises residential premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions