What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5215071?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed on the papers (s.91AB Residential Tenancies Act

How much money was awarded in case 5215071?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5215071?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5215071?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11999845-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5215071?

The tribunal order states: The application is dismissed on the papers (s.91AB Residential Tenancies Act

How much money was awarded in case 5215071?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5215071?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5215071?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11999845-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

38 Somerset Terrace, Stoke, Nelson 7011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5215071 — Tenancy dispute

Order

The application is dismissed on the papers (s.91AB Residential Tenancies Act 1986).

Reasons

The tenant has filed an application with the Tribunal complaining of a breach of the tenant’s privacy by the landlord. The tenant seeks an order that the landlord request that media articles relating to the tenant be removed.
The tenant’s application records that the tenancy commenced on 15 May 2019 and ended on 22nd May 2019.
The tenant’s application records the tenant’s name as “Plucky Developments Ltd”.
The tenant’s application to the Tribunal includes a copy of the relevant tenancy agreement. The tenancy agreement similarly records the tenant as “Plucky Developments Limited.”
The landlord party to this tenancy is recorded in the tenancy agreement as being “Blacks Property Ltd”. The tenant’s application to the Tribunal records the landlord party as being “ Joe and Kay Waller,” who appear to be directors of Blacks Property Ltd.
Companies Office records confirm that the tenant company, “Plucky Developments Ltd” was removed from the register of companies on 10 December 2020.
In an email to Tenancy Services dated 10 June 2025, Daniel Pluck (a former director of Plucky Developments Ltd) accepts that the company no longer exists, but says that the “fundamental relationship between Wallers and me (as the sole director of the company) was that of landlord/tenant.”
The Wallers, having been named in the proceeding, have invited the Tribunal to strike out the application on the grounds that the tenant company no longer exists. They seek to have the matter dealt with on the papers under s.91AB Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Section 92A RTA provides that the Tribunal may strike out, in whole or in part a proceeding if it is satisfied that it; (a) discloses no reasonable cause of action; or (b) is likely to cause prejudice or delay; or (c) is frivolous or vexatious; or (d) is otherwise an abuse of process.
In O’Neill v New Zealand Law Society and others CA170/2021[2022] NZCA 500, the Court of Appeal held that when considering an application to strike out, that “access to justice is an important human right. For that reason, a court will not lightly strike out a viable proceeding.... “
As a matter of law, these proceedings cannot be commenced by the tenant, as the tenant company, having been removed from the register of companies, no longer exists. For that reason this is not a viable proceeding. The application accordingly discloses no reasonable cause of action and is likely to cause prejudice.
Can the Tribunal make an order striking the proceedings out “on the papers”?
Section 91AB RTA provides that; “91AB Decision on the papers (1) despite anything to the contrary elsewhere in this Act, the Tribunal may decide a proceeding on the papers if the Tribunal considers it appropriate, except in circumstances set out in subsection (2). (2) the Tribunal must not decide a proceeding on the papers if the proceeding involves- (a) the termination of a tenancy; or (b) a landlord’s entry to the premises under section 48 or entry to a boarding room under section 66R. (3) before deciding a proceeding on the papers, the Tribunal must have regard to any views that may be provided by the parties on whether the proceedings should be dealt with on the papers. (4) the section does not apply if section 91AA applies.
The landlord party wishes to have the application to strike out the proceedings dealt with on the papers.
Mr Pluck, in an email dated 10 June 2025, still wishes to have the matter considered at a hearing before the Tribunal.
These proceedings are not proceedings where either of the exclusions in s.91AB (2) RTA or s.91AA RTA applies.
I have taken into account the respective parties views on the need for a hearing of this matter. The essential consideration for the Tribunal is the fact that the tenant party to these proceedings no longer exists. These proceedings are not viable. I consider this an appropriate case to strike out the tenants application on the papers.

Order

The application is dismissed on the papers (s.91AB Residential Tenancies Act 1986).

Reasons

The tenant has filed an application with the Tribunal complaining of a breach of the tenant’s privacy by the landlord. The tenant seeks an order that the landlord request that media articles relating to the tenant be removed.
The tenant’s application records that the tenancy commenced on 15 May 2019 and ended on 22nd May 2019.
The tenant’s application records the tenant’s name as “Plucky Developments Ltd”.
The tenant’s application to the Tribunal includes a copy of the relevant tenancy agreement. The tenancy agreement similarly records the tenant as “Plucky Developments Limited.”
The landlord party to this tenancy is recorded in the tenancy agreement as being “Blacks Property Ltd”. The tenant’s application to the Tribunal records the landlord party as being “ Joe and Kay Waller,” who appear to be directors of Blacks Property Ltd.
Companies Office records confirm that the tenant company, “Plucky Developments Ltd” was removed from the register of companies on 10 December 2020.
In an email to Tenancy Services dated 10 June 2025, Daniel Pluck (a former director of Plucky Developments Ltd) accepts that the company no longer exists, but says that the “fundamental relationship between Wallers and me (as the sole director of the company) was that of landlord/tenant.”
The Wallers, having been named in the proceeding, have invited the Tribunal to strike out the application on the grounds that the tenant company no longer exists. They seek to have the matter dealt with on the papers under s.91AB Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA”).
Section 92A RTA provides that the Tribunal may strike out, in whole or in part a proceeding if it is satisfied that it; (a) discloses no reasonable cause of action; or (b) is likely to cause prejudice or delay; or (c) is frivolous or vexatious; or (d) is otherwise an abuse of process.
In O’Neill v New Zealand Law Society and others CA170/2021[2022] NZCA 500, the Court of Appeal held that when considering an application to strike out, that “access to justice is an important human right. For that reason, a court will not lightly strike out a viable proceeding.... “
As a matter of law, these proceedings cannot be commenced by the tenant, as the tenant company, having been removed from the register of companies, no longer exists. For that reason this is not a viable proceeding. The application accordingly discloses no reasonable cause of action and is likely to cause prejudice.
Can the Tribunal make an order striking the proceedings out “on the papers”?
Section 91AB RTA provides that; “91AB Decision on the papers (1) despite anything to the contrary elsewhere in this Act, the Tribunal may decide a proceeding on the papers if the Tribunal considers it appropriate, except in circumstances set out in subsection (2). (2) the Tribunal must not decide a proceeding on the papers if the proceeding involves- (a) the termination of a tenancy; or (b) a landlord’s entry to the premises under section 48 or entry to a boarding room under section 66R. (3) before deciding a proceeding on the papers, the Tribunal must have regard to any views that may be provided by the parties on whether the proceedings should be dealt with on the papers. (4) the section does not apply if section 91AA applies.
The landlord party wishes to have the application to strike out the proceedings dealt with on the papers.
Mr Pluck, in an email dated 10 June 2025, still wishes to have the matter considered at a hearing before the Tribunal.
These proceedings are not proceedings where either of the exclusions in s.91AB (2) RTA or s.91AA RTA applies.
I have taken into account the respective parties views on the need for a hearing of this matter. The essential consideration for the Tribunal is the fact that the tenant party to these proceedings no longer exists. These proceedings are not viable. I consider this an appropriate case to strike out the tenants application on the papers.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5215071 — Tenancy dispute at 38 Somerset Terrace, Stoke, Nelson 7011

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 5215071 — Tenancy dispute at 38 Somerset Terrace, Stoke, Nelson 7011

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