What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5514371 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s], Keung Investments Trust [The tenant/s] must pay Moana

How much money was awarded in case 5514371?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5514371?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5514371?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13780303-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5514371 about?

The tribunal order states: [The tenant/s], Keung Investments Trust [The tenant/s] must pay Moana

How much money was awarded in case 5514371?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5514371?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5514371?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13780303-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

20 Moana Road, Goose Bay, RD 2, Kaikoura 7374 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5514371 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5514371 — net $28.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$28.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$28.00

Order

[The tenant/s], Keung Investments Trust [The tenant/s] must pay Moana Farms Limited Malcolm Hollis and [The landlord/s] $28.00 immediately for the filing fee as recorded in the table below.
The Tribunal declares the following: a. That there are tenancies at the property which are subject to the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA); b. The arrangements between MFL and the tenants are a tenancy agreement to which the RTA applies; c. The notices terminating the head lease and sublease were authorised by, and given in accordance with, the RTA. 5514371 2
The landlord is granted possession of the property as at 18 August 2026 against the tenant and subtenant.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via remote video and telephone conference.
The landlord was represented by counsel.
Counsel submit that they act for the receivers of Moana Farms Limited. They seek declarations as per their written submissions dated 10 June 2026. They seek declarations concerning the status of occupation arrangements at the above property. They also seek an order for possession pursuant to their 90- day termination notice.
The tenant opposes the application and submits that the RTA does not apply as it falls within the scope of section 5(1)(b) of the Act.
The principal issue for determination is whether the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction.
The Tribunal has the ability to make an order in the nature of a declaration as to the status for the purposes of the RTA of any premises or agreement or purported agreement, as well as to the rights or obligations of the parties or otherwise.1
Counsel for the landlord filed helpful submissions in support of their application. The Tribunal was provided with a copy of the Agreement to Lease dated 17 December 2013 and a Deed of Lease and Variation dated 13 April 2017, along with other documentary evidence in support.
I also heard viva voce evidence from the parties during the hearing on jurisdiction. Counsel referred to various case law in respect of residential versus commercial premises.
The parties should know that all evidence has been carefully considered even though I do not refer to it all. Relevant law
Section 5(1)(b) of the RTA provides that the Act does not apply in respect of any tenancy where the whole or a substantial part of the tenant’s income is derived from the use of the premises for agricultural, pastoral, horticultural, or other similar purposes.
The result of section 5(1)(b) is that a tenancy falling within the Act may be excluded if the requirements are satisfied. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 78(a). 5514371 3 Declarations and analysis
Counsel says that there are tenancies at 20 Moana Road. Counsel submit that the lease documents create a tenancy for residential purposes as they create an occupation of the property for that purpose. They say that under the first schedule a permitted use is personal home and rental accommodation.
Counsel submit that the property should be treated as a whole, and that the premises that are subject to the RTA are the house and the land. They say that it is subject to the RTA as that is the nature in which it is being used.
The tenant says that it is not divisible. He says that you cannot have the RTA protecting him with the cattle stock.
Counsel submit that one must look at what the property is being used for. There is no farming operation. There is a 3-bedroom homestead and a 1-bedroom guest cottage. There was a sub tenant in occupation of the cottage who has now vacated.
Counsel refers to the definition of premises and the first schedule but accepts that there is no reference to the cottage and homestead in the agreement to lease.
The tenant maintains that the property is being used for farming purposes. He recounted a number of injuries from accidents sustained while working on the farm.
Counsel says that the lease confirms the RTA position. They also referred the Tribunal to a memorandum dated 28 April 2026 from the receivers which describes what they observed, and took photos of, when they visited the property. They recorded that based on their observations the property included residential improvements and did not appear to be operating as a farm in the ordinary sense at the time of the inspection.
They further noted that there was a horse present on the property; the old wool shed appeared to have been converted for residential or accommodation use, and that the property did not appear to be used for farming purposes at the time of the inspection. They did not observe any farming equipment on the property.
The tenant says that a substantial part of his income is derived from the use of the premises. There is also income of approximately $20,000 per year from avocados. The tenant says that approximately $40,000 per month went through to Moana Farms in February, March and April this year. 5514371 4
The landlord says that there is no evidence that the income has come from the tenant.
The landlord says that there is no evidence that whole or substantial income is derived from the use of the premises.
The tenant says that the income from farming was $300,000 to $400,000 in 2025.
The tenant estimates that he received $50,000 in 2025. Analysis
This was a hearing to determine jurisdiction.
The tenant bears the evidential burden of establishing the basis upon which the exclusion is said to apply. It is not sufficient to demonstrate that farming is permitted under the lease or that the property is capable of being farmed.
The Tribunal must be satisfied that the whole or a substantial part of the tenant’s income is derived from the use of the premises for agricultural, pastoral, horticultural, or other similar purposes.
The Lease documents confirm that farming activities were contemplated by the parties. The lease also confirms that the property is substantial in size.
The Tribunal has not been provided with any evidence in respect of the tenant’s annual income or income derived from farming operations or any other source. No evidence was provided confirming that agricultural income constitutes the whole or a substantial part of the tenant’s earnings.
The Tribunal cannot infer the existence of substantial income from the size of the property, or the farming rights recorded in the lease.
The lease grants a right of occupation in respect of residential dwellings situated on the property. The evidence establishes occupation of the homestead by the tenant and occupation of the cottage by a sub tenant.
The lease contemplates residential use as a permitted use of the premises. Rent is also payable under the terms of the lease. I am entirely satisfied that the arrangements exhibit the characteristics of a tenancy arrangement within the meaning of the RTA.
There is no also evidence before the Tribunal which suggests that the termination notice was defective. I am therefore satisfied that the termination notice was served in accordance with the requirements relied upon by the receivers. 5514371 5
I am also satisfied that the receivers are persons who have become entitled to possession of the property by virtue of their appointment under the General Security Deed on 28 April 2026.
Section 58(1)(d) entitles the receivers, in the case of a fixed term tenancy, to have the same right to give notice terminating the tenancy as the landlord would have had if the tenancy had been a periodic tenancy.
I therefore find that the receivers are entitled to treat the fixed-term tenancy as a periodic tenancy able to be terminated with 90 days’ notice.
On the evidence before me I am satisfied that the residential occupation arrangements fall within the scope of the RTA.
Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the exclusion contained in section 5(1)(b) has been established.
Because Moana Farms Limited Malcolm Hollis and [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5514371 — net $28.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$28.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$28.00

Order

[The tenant/s], Keung Investments Trust [The tenant/s] must pay Moana Farms Limited Malcolm Hollis and [The landlord/s] $28.00 immediately for the filing fee as recorded in the table below.
The Tribunal declares the following: a. That there are tenancies at the property which are subject to the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA); b. The arrangements between MFL and the tenants are a tenancy agreement to which the RTA applies; c. The notices terminating the head lease and sublease were authorised by, and given in accordance with, the RTA. 5514371 2
The landlord is granted possession of the property as at 18 August 2026 against the tenant and subtenant.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing via remote video and telephone conference.
The landlord was represented by counsel.
Counsel submit that they act for the receivers of Moana Farms Limited. They seek declarations as per their written submissions dated 10 June 2026. They seek declarations concerning the status of occupation arrangements at the above property. They also seek an order for possession pursuant to their 90- day termination notice.
The tenant opposes the application and submits that the RTA does not apply as it falls within the scope of section 5(1)(b) of the Act.
The principal issue for determination is whether the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction.
The Tribunal has the ability to make an order in the nature of a declaration as to the status for the purposes of the RTA of any premises or agreement or purported agreement, as well as to the rights or obligations of the parties or otherwise.1
Counsel for the landlord filed helpful submissions in support of their application. The Tribunal was provided with a copy of the Agreement to Lease dated 17 December 2013 and a Deed of Lease and Variation dated 13 April 2017, along with other documentary evidence in support.
I also heard viva voce evidence from the parties during the hearing on jurisdiction. Counsel referred to various case law in respect of residential versus commercial premises.
The parties should know that all evidence has been carefully considered even though I do not refer to it all. Relevant law
Section 5(1)(b) of the RTA provides that the Act does not apply in respect of any tenancy where the whole or a substantial part of the tenant’s income is derived from the use of the premises for agricultural, pastoral, horticultural, or other similar purposes.
The result of section 5(1)(b) is that a tenancy falling within the Act may be excluded if the requirements are satisfied. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 78(a). 5514371 3 Declarations and analysis
Counsel says that there are tenancies at 20 Moana Road. Counsel submit that the lease documents create a tenancy for residential purposes as they create an occupation of the property for that purpose. They say that under the first schedule a permitted use is personal home and rental accommodation.
Counsel submit that the property should be treated as a whole, and that the premises that are subject to the RTA are the house and the land. They say that it is subject to the RTA as that is the nature in which it is being used.
The tenant says that it is not divisible. He says that you cannot have the RTA protecting him with the cattle stock.
Counsel submit that one must look at what the property is being used for. There is no farming operation. There is a 3-bedroom homestead and a 1-bedroom guest cottage. There was a sub tenant in occupation of the cottage who has now vacated.
Counsel refers to the definition of premises and the first schedule but accepts that there is no reference to the cottage and homestead in the agreement to lease.
The tenant maintains that the property is being used for farming purposes. He recounted a number of injuries from accidents sustained while working on the farm.
Counsel says that the lease confirms the RTA position. They also referred the Tribunal to a memorandum dated 28 April 2026 from the receivers which describes what they observed, and took photos of, when they visited the property. They recorded that based on their observations the property included residential improvements and did not appear to be operating as a farm in the ordinary sense at the time of the inspection.
They further noted that there was a horse present on the property; the old wool shed appeared to have been converted for residential or accommodation use, and that the property did not appear to be used for farming purposes at the time of the inspection. They did not observe any farming equipment on the property.
The tenant says that a substantial part of his income is derived from the use of the premises. There is also income of approximately $20,000 per year from avocados. The tenant says that approximately $40,000 per month went through to Moana Farms in February, March and April this year. 5514371 4
The landlord says that there is no evidence that the income has come from the tenant.
The landlord says that there is no evidence that whole or substantial income is derived from the use of the premises.
The tenant says that the income from farming was $300,000 to $400,000 in 2025.
The tenant estimates that he received $50,000 in 2025. Analysis
This was a hearing to determine jurisdiction.
The tenant bears the evidential burden of establishing the basis upon which the exclusion is said to apply. It is not sufficient to demonstrate that farming is permitted under the lease or that the property is capable of being farmed.
The Tribunal must be satisfied that the whole or a substantial part of the tenant’s income is derived from the use of the premises for agricultural, pastoral, horticultural, or other similar purposes.
The Lease documents confirm that farming activities were contemplated by the parties. The lease also confirms that the property is substantial in size.
The Tribunal has not been provided with any evidence in respect of the tenant’s annual income or income derived from farming operations or any other source. No evidence was provided confirming that agricultural income constitutes the whole or a substantial part of the tenant’s earnings.
The Tribunal cannot infer the existence of substantial income from the size of the property, or the farming rights recorded in the lease.
The lease grants a right of occupation in respect of residential dwellings situated on the property. The evidence establishes occupation of the homestead by the tenant and occupation of the cottage by a sub tenant.
The lease contemplates residential use as a permitted use of the premises. Rent is also payable under the terms of the lease. I am entirely satisfied that the arrangements exhibit the characteristics of a tenancy arrangement within the meaning of the RTA.
There is no also evidence before the Tribunal which suggests that the termination notice was defective. I am therefore satisfied that the termination notice was served in accordance with the requirements relied upon by the receivers. 5514371 5
I am also satisfied that the receivers are persons who have become entitled to possession of the property by virtue of their appointment under the General Security Deed on 28 April 2026.
Section 58(1)(d) entitles the receivers, in the case of a fixed term tenancy, to have the same right to give notice terminating the tenancy as the landlord would have had if the tenancy had been a periodic tenancy.
I therefore find that the receivers are entitled to treat the fixed-term tenancy as a periodic tenancy able to be terminated with 90 days’ notice.
On the evidence before me I am satisfied that the residential occupation arrangements fall within the scope of the RTA.
Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the exclusion contained in section 5(1)(b) has been established.
Because Moana Farms Limited Malcolm Hollis and [The landlord/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5514371 — Tenancy dispute at 20 Moana Road, Goose Bay, RD 2, Kaikoura 7374

At a glance

Award balance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5514371 — Tenancy dispute at 20 Moana Road, Goose Bay, RD 2, Kaikoura 7374

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions