Tenantcheck Insights · Case study

Tenancy Tribunal case 5540541 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat Flat 10B, 97 Shortland Street, Auckland Central,

Decided 23 Jul 2026 · Published 23 Jul 2026 · Application 5540541

View official order on MoJ →Explore similar cases

At a glance

Key facts from the published tribunal order.

Location

Auckland

Tribunal region

Adjudicator

M Kan

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

The application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted via video conference.
Mr Affan and Mr Reddy attended the hearing by video conference. They are two of the three tenants under the tenancy agreement. The remaining tenant, Mr Panesar, did not attend.
I attempted to contact Mr Panesar during the hearing. I called him once and left a message. I then waited and attempted to contact him a second time. He did not answer either call. I was satisfied that it was appropriate to continue in his absence.
Ms Munoz attended by video conference as the landlord’s representative.
At the beginning of the hearing, Mr Affan explained that the application had been filed because of a dispute involving Mr Panesar. He said the issue was not a dispute with the landlord, but a dispute between tenants. The application form also records that the claim was for contribution said to be owed by Mr Panesar, including unpaid rent and electricity. The amount claimed in the application was $1,062.70 but it had since accrued to more than $2,000.
Mr Affan said Mr Panesar had not paid his share of rent for some time, had not responded to messages, and was not currently at the property. Mr Affan also said Mr Panesar’s belongings remained at the premises, making it difficult for him to find a new tenant to replace him.
Mr Affan also explained that he had contacted Tenancy Services before the hearing and had been told that the Tribunal is a forum for disputes between landlords and tenants, not disputes between tenants. He said he had been told he could withdraw the application or attend the hearing and present the issue.
I accept that Mr Affan and Mr Reddy came before the Tribunal because they are joint tenants and they are concerned that Mr Panesar has not contributed to rent, utilities, and other amounts they say are owed.
However, I can only decide matters if I have jurisdiction.
Section 77(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”) provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine, in accordance with the Act, any dispute that: a. exists between a landlord and a tenant, or between a landlord and the guarantor of a tenant; and b. relates to any tenancy to which the Act applies, or to which the Act applied at any material time.
In my view, the dispute is not between the landlord and a tenant. It is, in substance, a dispute between tenants about contribution to rent, utilities, and related payments.
Accordingly, the application must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
At the end of the hearing, Ms Munoz told me there may be a separate application by the landlord concerning unpaid rent. That is a separate matter and the application should proceed on its own course.

Topics & place

Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).

Auckland

Residential Tenancies Act sections

s77(1)

Property management

CROCKERS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LIMITED as agent for Gladys Joquant-Stovicek and Roger Denis Hayman as executors of Martine Chene-Joquant Estate. (respondent)

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5540541 about?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

How much money was awarded in case 5540541?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5540541?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5540541?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13939003-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

For landlords & property managers

Reduce avoidable tribunal risk with proper tenant checks.

Tenantcheck reports take minutes: a small step before a dispute ends up at tribunal.

Order a Tenantcheck →

Reasons

The hearing was conducted via video conference.

Mr Affan and Mr Reddy attended the hearing by video conference. They are two of the three tenants under the tenancy agreement. The remaining tenant, Mr Panesar, did not attend.

I attempted to contact Mr Panesar during the hearing. I called him once and left a message. I then waited and attempted to contact him a second time. He did not answer either call. I was satisfied that it was appropriate to continue in his absence.

Ms Munoz attended by video conference as the landlord’s representative.

At the beginning of the hearing, Mr Affan explained that the application had been filed because of a dispute involving Mr Panesar. He said the issue was not a dispute with the landlord, but a dispute between tenants. The application form also records that the claim was for contribution said to be owed by Mr Panesar, including unpaid rent and electricity. The amount claimed in the application was $1,062.70 but it had since accrued to more than $2,000.

Mr Affan said Mr Panesar had not paid his share of rent for some time, had not responded to messages, and was not currently at the property. Mr Affan also said Mr Panesar’s belongings remained at the premises, making it difficult for him to find a new tenant to replace him.

Mr Affan also explained that he had contacted Tenancy Services before the hearing and had been told that the Tribunal is a forum for disputes between landlords and tenants, not disputes between tenants. He said he had been told he could withdraw the application or attend the hearing and present the issue.

I accept that Mr Affan and Mr Reddy came before the Tribunal because they are joint tenants and they are concerned that Mr Panesar has not contributed to rent, utilities, and other amounts they say are owed.

However, I can only decide matters if I have jurisdiction.

Section 77(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”) provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine, in accordance with the Act, any dispute that: a. exists between a landlord and a tenant, or between a landlord and the guarantor of a tenant; and b. relates to any tenancy to which the Act applies, or to which the Act applied at any material time.

In my view, the dispute is not between the landlord and a tenant. It is, in substance, a dispute between tenants about contribution to rent, utilities, and related payments.

Accordingly, the application must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

At the end of the hearing, Ms Munoz told me there may be a separate application by the landlord concerning unpaid rent. That is a separate matter and the application should proceed on its own course.