What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4923323?

The tribunal order states: South Canterbury Conservation Trust is granted possession of the premises at

How much money was awarded in case 4923323?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4923323?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4923323?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10945567-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4923323?

The tribunal order states: South Canterbury Conservation Trust is granted possession of the premises at

How much money was awarded in case 4923323?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4923323?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4923323?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10945567-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

116 Hall Road, Kakahu, RD 21, Geraldine 7991 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4923323 — Tenancy dispute

Order

South Canterbury Conservation Trust is granted possession of the premises at 116 Hall Road, Kakahu, RD 21, Geraldine 7991 at 11.59 am on Monday 4 November 2024.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing on 7 October 2024.
I will refer to the parties as the “owner” and “occupants”.
The owner says that the occupants are squatters and seeks an order for possession of the premises.
Section 65 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides as follows: 65 Eviction of squatters (1) Where, on the application of any person entitled to possession of any residential premises, the Tribunal is satisfied that any other person is in possession of the premises as a squatter or trespasser, or otherwise than pursuant to any right of occupation granted to that person by any person having lawful authority to grant that right to that other person, the Tribunal shall make a possession order granting possession of the premises to the applicant. (2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall limit or affect the provisions of the Trespass Act 1980, or any remedy that may be available to the person lawfully entitled to possession of the premises. (3) To avoid doubt, the Tribunal has jurisdiction under this section even though the premises are not subject to a tenancy agreement.
In Sergeant v Nigro and Tapsell (2019) NZHC 328 the High Court held that there are three conditions which must be met before an order can be made under s.65 RTA. • The premises must be residential premises. • The applicant for possession is entitled to possession of those premises. • Another person or persons are in possession as squatters, trespassers or otherwise than pursuant to any right of occupation granted by a person having lawful authority to do so.
It seems clear that the premises are residential premises as defined in s.2 RTA. No evidence to the contrary has been provided by either party.
Is the owner entitled to possession of the premises?
The record of title for the premises provided to the Tribunal by the owner, shows the owner as the registered owner of the premises.
The occupants say that the agreement for sale and purchase, under which the owner purchased the premises in or about 1997, was defective, in that it failed to record that there would be life interest in favour of Barry Morrison.
There are no provisions in the RTA which would allow the Tribunal to conduct an enquiry as to the rights of the occupants to the premises as against the owner, due the sanctity of the doctrine of indefeasibility of title.
The Tribunal finds that the owner is entitled to possession as the registered owner.
Are the occupants in possession pursuant to any right of occupation granted by a person having lawful authority to do so? Some background to the matter is required.
The premises were initially owned by Ian Morrison. Ian Morrison was married to the current occupant, Judith Anglem. Judith Anglem’s evidence was that her name had never been on the title to the premises.
The premises were sold by Ian Morrison to the current owners in 1997. The sale and purchase agreement for the premises provided that there would be a life interest for Ian Morrison’s mother. Mrs Morrison subsequently died. It appears Barry Morrison (Ian’s brother) was allowed by the owner to remain at the premises on an informal basis until he eventually left.
Judith Anglem said that there had been a substantial history of animosity between the respective parties relating to the failure to include the life interest for Barry Morrison in the agreement for sale and purchase. Whether that is right or not, it is not a matter that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider.
In or about 2014, the occupants decided to move into, what was by then, an empty house at the premises. The occupants said that the property was in extremely poor condition. Over the years the occupants have carried out renovations and repairs in an attempt to upgrade the property.
Despite the owner becoming aware that occupants had moved in, neither party seems to have taken any steps, for reasons that were not satisfactorily explained at the hearing.
It was only in 2023, when the insurance risks of having people reside in the premises were considered by the owner, that steps were taken to remove the occupants. The steps taken came to a head when a notice to vacate the premises was served on the occupants on 8 December 2023. That notice required the occupants to vacate and remove their possessions by no later than 11 March 2024.
The occupants have not vacated the premises and remain as of the day of this hearing.
At the time when the occupants moved into the premises, the party with the lawful authority to grant a right of occupation was the current owner. It was clear from the evidence of both parties that no right to occupy the premises has ever been granted by the owner to the occupants. The occupants said that their only right was based on a wish to conserve the property.
I have no difficulty in finding that the occupants are not in possession of the premises as a result of a right of occupation provided by someone with lawful authority to grant that right.
The Tribunal having found that the three requirements set out in Sergeant v Nigro and Tapsell (supra) have been made out, is required to make an order for possession granting possession of the premises to the applicant, in this case the owner.
The occupants say that whilst living at the premises, they have carried out extensive work and improvements. Some photographs of the work were provided in evidence. The photos show that the premises remain basic. I record for the benefit of the parties that any claim that the work by the occupants might raise some equitable right to possession or interest, would need to be established in the High Court before the question of any equitable remedy is addressed (see Willigers v Churchill Fishing International Limited [2020] NZHC 2212).
I am conscious that the occupants have lived at the premises for some time. Taking that and their age into consideration, I order that possession of the premises to the owner at 11.59 am on Monday 4 November 2024.

Order

South Canterbury Conservation Trust is granted possession of the premises at 116 Hall Road, Kakahu, RD 21, Geraldine 7991 at 11.59 am on Monday 4 November 2024.

Reasons

Both parties attended the video hearing on 7 October 2024.
I will refer to the parties as the “owner” and “occupants”.
The owner says that the occupants are squatters and seeks an order for possession of the premises.
Section 65 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”) provides as follows: 65 Eviction of squatters (1) Where, on the application of any person entitled to possession of any residential premises, the Tribunal is satisfied that any other person is in possession of the premises as a squatter or trespasser, or otherwise than pursuant to any right of occupation granted to that person by any person having lawful authority to grant that right to that other person, the Tribunal shall make a possession order granting possession of the premises to the applicant. (2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall limit or affect the provisions of the Trespass Act 1980, or any remedy that may be available to the person lawfully entitled to possession of the premises. (3) To avoid doubt, the Tribunal has jurisdiction under this section even though the premises are not subject to a tenancy agreement.
In Sergeant v Nigro and Tapsell (2019) NZHC 328 the High Court held that there are three conditions which must be met before an order can be made under s.65 RTA. • The premises must be residential premises. • The applicant for possession is entitled to possession of those premises. • Another person or persons are in possession as squatters, trespassers or otherwise than pursuant to any right of occupation granted by a person having lawful authority to do so.
It seems clear that the premises are residential premises as defined in s.2 RTA. No evidence to the contrary has been provided by either party.
Is the owner entitled to possession of the premises?
The record of title for the premises provided to the Tribunal by the owner, shows the owner as the registered owner of the premises.
The occupants say that the agreement for sale and purchase, under which the owner purchased the premises in or about 1997, was defective, in that it failed to record that there would be life interest in favour of Barry Morrison.
There are no provisions in the RTA which would allow the Tribunal to conduct an enquiry as to the rights of the occupants to the premises as against the owner, due the sanctity of the doctrine of indefeasibility of title.
The Tribunal finds that the owner is entitled to possession as the registered owner.
Are the occupants in possession pursuant to any right of occupation granted by a person having lawful authority to do so? Some background to the matter is required.
The premises were initially owned by Ian Morrison. Ian Morrison was married to the current occupant, Judith Anglem. Judith Anglem’s evidence was that her name had never been on the title to the premises.
The premises were sold by Ian Morrison to the current owners in 1997. The sale and purchase agreement for the premises provided that there would be a life interest for Ian Morrison’s mother. Mrs Morrison subsequently died. It appears Barry Morrison (Ian’s brother) was allowed by the owner to remain at the premises on an informal basis until he eventually left.
Judith Anglem said that there had been a substantial history of animosity between the respective parties relating to the failure to include the life interest for Barry Morrison in the agreement for sale and purchase. Whether that is right or not, it is not a matter that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider.
In or about 2014, the occupants decided to move into, what was by then, an empty house at the premises. The occupants said that the property was in extremely poor condition. Over the years the occupants have carried out renovations and repairs in an attempt to upgrade the property.
Despite the owner becoming aware that occupants had moved in, neither party seems to have taken any steps, for reasons that were not satisfactorily explained at the hearing.
It was only in 2023, when the insurance risks of having people reside in the premises were considered by the owner, that steps were taken to remove the occupants. The steps taken came to a head when a notice to vacate the premises was served on the occupants on 8 December 2023. That notice required the occupants to vacate and remove their possessions by no later than 11 March 2024.
The occupants have not vacated the premises and remain as of the day of this hearing.
At the time when the occupants moved into the premises, the party with the lawful authority to grant a right of occupation was the current owner. It was clear from the evidence of both parties that no right to occupy the premises has ever been granted by the owner to the occupants. The occupants said that their only right was based on a wish to conserve the property.
I have no difficulty in finding that the occupants are not in possession of the premises as a result of a right of occupation provided by someone with lawful authority to grant that right.
The Tribunal having found that the three requirements set out in Sergeant v Nigro and Tapsell (supra) have been made out, is required to make an order for possession granting possession of the premises to the applicant, in this case the owner.
The occupants say that whilst living at the premises, they have carried out extensive work and improvements. Some photographs of the work were provided in evidence. The photos show that the premises remain basic. I record for the benefit of the parties that any claim that the work by the occupants might raise some equitable right to possession or interest, would need to be established in the High Court before the question of any equitable remedy is addressed (see Willigers v Churchill Fishing International Limited [2020] NZHC 2212).
I am conscious that the occupants have lived at the premises for some time. Taking that and their age into consideration, I order that possession of the premises to the owner at 11.59 am on Monday 4 November 2024.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4923323 — Tenancy dispute at 116 Hall Road, Kakahu, RD 21, Geraldine 7991

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4923323 — Tenancy dispute at 116 Hall Road, Kakahu, RD 21, Geraldine 7991

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Property management

Frequently asked questions