What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5370767?

The tribunal order states: The application for rent arrears against Mr Chen is granted on the basis that

How much money was awarded in case 5370767?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5370767?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5370767?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13503139-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5370767?

The tribunal order states: The application for rent arrears against Mr Chen is granted on the basis that

How much money was awarded in case 5370767?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5370767?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5370767?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13503139-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

44B Kenmure Avenue, Forrest Hill, Auckland 0620 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5370767 — Rent arrears

Order

The application for rent arrears against Mr Chen is granted on the basis that there was a verbal residential tenancy agreement between the applicant and Mr Chen.
Leave is granted to the applicant to file a further application before me to determine the quantum of rent arrears against Mr Chen.
The application for a possession order against Mr Chen is declined because Mr Chen no longer occupies 44B Kenmure Avenue, Forrest Hill, Auckland.
The application for rent arrears and possession of 44B Kenmure Avenue, Forrest Hill, Auckland against Ms Jiao is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Reasons

Introduction

The matter before me concerns an application by the applicant, Wells Oasis Limited, in respect of the residential premises situated at 44B Kenmure Avenue, Forrest Hill, Auckland (“the premises”). The application was filed on 20 October 2025.
For consistency, references in this decision to the premises are references to 44B Kenmure Avenue, Forrest Hill, Auckland, being the property formerly described as 44A Kenmure Avenue prior to Auckland Council’s renumbering of the development.
The residential tenancy agreement relied upon by the applicant referred to the premises as “44A Kenmure Avenue” because that was the address used at the time the document was created. It was subsequently updated by Council to refer to “44B Kenmure Avenue”. This issue is not in dispute between the parties.
The applicant is a company of which Mr Wang is the director. The first respondent is Ms Jiao, who is represented by counsel, Mr Pang. The second respondent is Mr Chen, who appears on his own behalf. Mr Taylor appears as counsel for the applicant and Mr Wang.
The matter proceeded before me over multiple hearing dates. The first hearing was held on 16 January 2026 and was adjourned on a part-heard basis by way of an order dated 18 January 2026 to allow the parties to obtain and file further evidence. The hearing resumed on 10 April 2026, again on a part-heard basis, following which I issued a further interim decision dated 13 April 2026. The third and final hearing commenced on 20 April 2026, at which point the remaining evidence was heard and the proceeding concluded.
At the hearing on 16 January 2026 and the resumed hearing on 10 April 2026, Ms Sui acted as the court-appointed Mandarin interpreter. At the final hearing on 20 April 2026, Ms Qiao acted as the interpreter. The use of interpreters was necessary given that Mandarin was the primary language of the parties.
For the purpose of this decision, and where the context requires, the terms “tenant” and “respondent” may be used interchangeably. Ms Jiao is referenced as the first respondent. Mr Chen is the second respondent.
I am fluent in Chinese. By consent, the first hearing was conducted in Mandarin. The second and third hearings were assisted by a Mandarin interpreter because Mr Taylor required the interpreter to translate the evidence. Procedural Background
This proceeding may be characterised by a number of procedural issues arising from the nature of the dispute and the evidential gaps in the parties’ respective cases.
At the first hearing, it became apparent that key factual matters were in dispute, including: a. whether a residential tenancy agreement existed between the parties; b. whether rent was paid, including an alleged cash payment; and c. the true nature of the arrangement under which the respondents occupied the premises.
In light of these issues, I directed that further evidence be obtained. This included, in particular, documentary evidence relating to the alleged tenancy agreement, Mr Chen’s travel movement records, and the original rent summary file together with its metadata.
The proceeding was therefore adjourned on a part-heard basis on 18 January 2026 to enable the parties to properly prepare their cases and to produce relevant documentary evidence.
Following the adjournment, further memoranda, witness statements, and documentary material were filed by the parties. However, issues remained as to the completeness and reliability of certain evidence, including the timing and creation of the rent summary and the authenticity of the alleged tenancy documentation.
When the matter resumed on 10 April 2026, further oral evidence was heard and the evidential issues were explored in more detail. Notwithstanding this, the matter remained part-heard, and a further adjournment was required to complete the evidence. Background to the Dispute
Although the present proceeding is brought under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“the Act”) and concerns an alleged tenancy, the background to the dispute lies in a broader and separate relationship property dispute between the respondents, Ms Jiao and Mr Chen.
The evidence establishes that Ms Jiao and Mr Chen were previously in a relationship and have since separated. Proceedings have been commenced in the High Court concerning the division of their relationship property, including issues relating to ownership and entitlement to the premises at 44B Kenmure Avenue.
That relationship property dispute is not a matter for determination in this Tribunal. The jurisdiction of this Tribunal is confined to determining whether a tenancy relationship existed between the applicant and the respondents, and any consequences arising under the Act.
Nevertheless, the existence of that separate dispute provides important context. The respondents’ occupation of the premises, and their respective positions as to the nature of that occupation, cannot properly be understood without reference to their prior relationship and their differing claims as to beneficial ownership or entitlement arising out of that relationship.
In particular, the first respondent’s position is that her occupation of the premises was not pursuant to a landlord and tenant relationship, but rather arose out of a broader arrangement connected to the relationship between herself, Mr Chen, and Mr Wang, including matters relating to property development and intended ownership.
By contrast, the applicant’s position is that the respondents occupied the premises as tenants under a residential tenancy agreement, and that rent was payable and remains outstanding. The applicant seeks, among other relief, termination of the tenancy, possession of the premises, and recovery of rent arrears.
It is against this factual and procedural background that the issues in this proceeding fall to be determined. Applicant’s Position (Mr Wang / Wells Oasis Limited)
The applicant’s case is that a residential tenancy existed between Wells Oasis Limited and the respondents.
The applicant says that the respondents began occupying the premises around late August 2023 and agreed to pay rent.
The applicant’s position is that rent was agreed at approximately $1,200 per week.
The applicant relies on a residential tenancy agreement (unsigned by the respondents), supporting communications, including WeChat messages, school enrolment documents, and a utility bill, said to evidence the arrangement.
The applicant says that the tenancy agreement was provided to the respondents.
As recorded at the hearing, Mr Wang says this was a tenancy. Mr Wang further relies on conduct said to be consistent with a tenancy, including: a. Mr Chen paid the rent at least once; b. utilities were transferred into Ms Jiao’s name because she was said to be a tenant; and. c. the address of 44B Kenmure Avenue was used to enrol the respondents’ daughter at Campbells Bay School.
Mr Wang’s position, expressed at the first hearing, was: “主要的诉求...一是收回房子，二是 10万的租金。” “His [sic] claim is to recover the property and $100,000 in rent.” First Respondent’s Position (Ms Jiao)
The first respondent’s primary position is that no tenancy existed between herself and the applicant.
She denies entering into any tenancy agreement or agreeing to pay rent.
She disputes that any tenancy agreement was provided to her and “adamantly and flatly denies” that this occurred.
Her case is that her occupation of the premises arose from a different arrangement, namely: a. a broader understanding connected to Mr Chen’s dealings with Mr Wang; and b. an intended ownership or beneficial arrangement relating to the property.
Her evidence is that the intention was for her and Mr Chen to retain or occupy the premises as part of the property development arrangement between Mr Chen and Mr Wang.
She also says that her occupation was connected to her daughter’s schooling, particularly to secure access to Campbells Bay School because 44B Kenmure Avenue was within the school zone.
She maintains that any documents resembling a tenancy agreement were not understood by her to create a tenancy and may instead have been used for administrative purposes, such as school enrolment.
Her position, in substance, is that: a. there was no landlord and tenant relationship; b. there was no agreement for rent payment; and c. the Tribunal therefore has no jurisdiction. Second Respondent’s Position (Mr Chen)
Mr Chen’s position differs in some material respects from Ms Jiao’s and contains elements supportive of the applicant’s case.
Mr Chen accepts that he had discussions with Mr Wang regarding the property.
He states that he intended to purchase the property but lacked funds at the time.
He says that he proposed an arrangement whereby he would first rent the property and later purchase it, because he did not have sufficient funds to complete the purchase immediately.
He confirms that discussions with Mr Wang regarding the purchase were verbal only and were not reduced to writing.
His evidence suggests that there was at least some form of rental component to the arrangement, although within a broader “rent-to-buy” understanding.
Mr Chen also distinguishes the dispute between himself and Ms Jiao from the present tenancy issues. Mr Chen’s position is that the relationship property dispute is between himself and Ms Jiao and has no bearing on the applicant’s claim. Mr Chen expressed regret to Mr Wang and said that he was sincerely sorry for what had occurred. Issues for Each Respondent
The issues for determination arise from the fundamentally different characterisations of the parties’ arrangement.
In relation to the first respondent, Ms Jiao, the primary issue is whether she was ever a tenant of the applicant within the meaning of the Act. This requires consideration of whether there was any agreement, whether express or implied, under which she occupied the premises in consideration for rent: see section 2 of the Act.
In relation to the second respondent, Mr Chen, the issue is of a different character. It is necessary to determine whether his dealings with Mr Wang gave rise to a tenancy, or whether the arrangement he describes was a “rent first, then purchase” arrangement forming part of a wider informal understanding directed toward the prospective purchase of the property. Whatever description the parties may give to the arrangement, the key issue is whether a residential tenancy existed.
This in turn requires consideration of whether any obligation to pay rent existed as part of a tenancy, or whether any such payment was merely incidental to a different form of arrangement.
A further issue arises as to whether any alleged tenancy, if established, was between the applicant and both respondents jointly, or between the applicant and Mr Chen alone.
These issues give rise to the overarching question of jurisdiction. The Tribunal may only make orders under the Act if satisfied that a residential tenancy existed.
Accordingly, the central question is whether, on the balance of probabilities, there was a tenancy agreement under which the respondents, or either of them, occupied the premises in consideration for rent.
If no such tenancy is established, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine the dispute and the applicant’s claim must fail. The Law
The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is confined to determining residential tenancy disputes to which the Act applies.
The starting point is the definition of a “tenancy” in section 2 of the Act. A tenancy is defined as a right to occupy residential premises granted by one person to another in consideration for rent. A “tenancy agreement” is an express or implied agreement under which such a tenancy is granted.
It follows that, for a tenancy to exist, the following elements must be established on the balance of probabilities: a. a landlord; b. a tenant; c. residential premises; d. a right to occupy the premises; and e. that the right to occupy is granted in consideration for rent.
The existence of a tenancy is a jurisdictional fact. If no tenancy exists, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to make orders under the Act.
Under section 77(2)(b) of the Act, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine whether there is or is not a tenancy agreement to which the Act applies, and to determine the parties to any such agreement.
The burden rests initially on the applicant to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that a tenancy existed. Where that is not established, the Act does not apply and the claim must fail.
Where the nature of the arrangement is in dispute, the Tribunal must consider all of the evidence, including the conduct of the parties, any documents relied upon, and the surrounding circumstances, to determine whether the legal requirements of a tenancy are satisfied.
Finally, the Tribunal may receive evidence whether or not it would be admissible in a court of law, including hearsay evidence. However, the weight to be given to such evidence depends upon its reliability. Sham tenancy arrangements and jurisdiction
In Chan v Ghee [2025] NZTT 5107329, the applicant landlord, Mr Chan, and the respondent trustee, Mr Ghee, were involved in an extensive and intertwined financial and property development relationship. The applicant claimed that a residential tenancy existed in relation to a residential property at Paritai Drive.
The applicant relied upon a written residential tenancy agreement signed by both parties on 13 September 2020. The agreement provided for weekly rent of $4,700 and recorded a fixed-term tenancy from 9 October 2020 to 8 October 2021. The applicant argued that rent was paid regularly during the first year and that subsequent lump-sum payments demonstrated the existence of a genuine tenancy relationship.
The respondent disputed that a genuine landlord and tenant relationship existed. The respondent’s evidence was that the arrangement formed part of wider financial and lending arrangements connected with property development activities, and that the “rent” was intended to be recycled back to the respondent through associated entities rather than constituting genuine rental payments.
After considering the surrounding circumstances, the learned Adjudicator C ter Haar found that the arrangement was not genuinely intended to create a landlord and tenant relationship. Relevant factors included: a. the applicant’s acceptance that the agreement was entered into to facilitate bank lending processes; b. evidence that rent payments were intended to be recycled back to the respondent; c. the absence of ordinary landlord conduct, including the absence of meaningful rent enforcement despite substantial arrears; d. financial transfers between related entities inconsistent with an ordinary tenancy arrangement; and e. the broader financial and development relationship between the parties.
The learned Adjudicator C ter Haar held that the residential tenancy agreement was a sham and therefore had no legal effect. She concluded that there was no genuine landlord and tenant relationship and therefore no jurisdiction under the Act.
Chan v Ghee therefore demonstrates that a. the existence of a written residential tenancy agreement is not determinative; b. the Tribunal must examine the true substance and intention of the parties’ arrangement; c. the absence of genuine rent obligations or ordinary landlord conduct may indicate that no tenancy exists; and d. where no genuine tenancy relationship exists, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction under the Act.
Although the facts in Chan v Ghee differ from those of the present case, the principles remain relevant to the issues before me.
Because Mr Chen’s position is supportive of Mr Wang’s claim, I will address Mr Chen’s position first, followed by Ms Jiao’s position. Mr Chen’s position - analysis
In my view, the evidence concerning Mr Chen is materially different from the evidence concerning Ms Jiao.
Mr Chen’s evidence throughout the proceeding was that there was an arrangement with Mr Wang under which he would occupy the premises and pay rent. At the final hearing, he described the arrangement in Mandarin as: “我想以先租这个房子，再买，先租后买的方式来完成对这个房子的购买。” “I wanted to rent the property first, and later purchase it.”
Mr Wang’s evidence was broadly consistent with that aspect of Mr Chen’s evidence. Mr Wang did not describe the arrangement in precisely the same way, but he accepted that there was an intended purchase. His evidence was that the original agreement was to settle the property as soon as possible, and that this was why he did not initially enforce payment of rent.
I understand Mr Wang’s evidence to mean that the tenancy arrangement was intended to bridge the period until a purchase agreement could be finalised.
I accept that there was uncertainty about how long Mr Wang was prepared to wait for Mr Chen to obtain funding. That uncertainty does not, by itself, prevent a tenancy from arising. Mr Chen’s evidence still supports a finding that, as between him and the applicant, there was a verbal agreement that he could occupy the premises and that rent was payable.
The purpose of the occupation also requires consideration. The evidence is consistent with the parties wanting the respondents’ daughter to enrol at Campbells Bay School. At the relevant time, Mr Chen and Ms Jiao were living at their family home in Oteha Valley. Ms Jiao’s evidence was that the Kenmure Avenue property was relevant because it fell within the Campbells Bay School zone.
Mr Wang’s evidence suggests that an earlier informal or “one-page” tenancy document existed. The later and more formal residential tenancy agreement appears to have been prepared in the context of Mr Chen seeking to enrol his daughter at Campbells Bay School. Throughout the hearing, however, Mr Wang did not produce the “one-page” tenancy document.
Mr Wang in his evidence said that: “最早的一份是一页纸的简易合同，这份正式合同是应陈禹先生的要求准备的。” “The initial tenancy agreement was a simple one-page tenancy agreement. On Mr Yu Chen’s request, I made a formal tenancy agreement.”
Mr Wang understood that Mr Chen requested the more formal agreement because of his daughter’s school enrolment. Mr Wang’s understanding is consistent with Mr Chen’s evidence: “后来我是拿到了这个全面的这个租房合同。因为是这样，因为我女儿之前上学，我们也尝试过，就是给我的女儿办入学，但是没有成功。所以呢，就是我想要一份比较正式一点的合同，这个就是才，就可能学校才可以去认可这个。” “Later I obtained the comprehensive residential tenancy agreement ... because previously my daughter’s school enrollment had not succeeded, so I wanted a more formal agreement that the school would accept. So I wanted to have a comprehensive residential tenancy agreement so I in the hope that the school would accept it.”
Mr Chen then asked Mr Wang to place Ms Jiao’s name and contact number on the tenancy agreement because Ms Jiao was responsible for their daughter’s school enrolment. This is consistent with Mr Chen discussing the tenancy documentation for the purpose of enrolling their daughter at Campbells Bay School and with Ms Jiao, who had primary day-to-day care of the child, attending to the enrolment process.
This is also consistent with Mr Wang’s will-say statement referring to messages about transferring utilities into Ms Jiao’s name.
Accordingly, it is more likely than not that Mr Chen, who was working as a builder at the time, left the practical enrolment arrangements to Ms Jiao. That explains why Ms Jiao became involved in arranging supporting documentation, without necessarily meaning that she personally agreed to become a tenant. I return to Ms Jiao’s position separately below.
The alleged $6,000 cash payment was a significant issue in the proceeding. Mr Pang questioned whether this payment actually took place because Mr Chen was not in New Zealand at the material time and therefore could not have paid $6,000 cash on the alleged date.
Mr Wang, on the other hand, said that he received $6,000 cash from Mr Chen in the garage at 44B Kenmure Avenue. In answer to my questions, he said that the money consisted of $50 notes contained in a paper envelope. He could not clearly recall whether he counted the money. He said he accepted the cash and later spent it.
Neither Mr Chen nor Mr Wang could recall the precise date on which the $6,000 was paid and received, except that, according to Mr Wang, the payment occurred in the garage at 44B Kenmure Avenue.
Mr Chen also said that he paid Mr Wang $6,000 as rent. However, there is a difficulty with the alleged date. The evidence established that Mr Chen departed Auckland for China on 14 December 2023 and returned to Auckland on 26 December 2023. If the payment occurred on or about 23 December 2023, it could not have been made by Mr Chen in the garage at 44B Kenmure Avenue on that date.
I accept that Mr Wang’s rent summary records receipt of $6,000 cash from Mr Chen. However, the alleged date could not have been correct because Mr Chen was in China at the relevant time according to his travel records.
I do not consider that difficulty fatal to Mr Chen’s evidence that a payment was made. Mr Chen may simply have been mistaken about the precise date. He was adamant that he paid $6,000 cash to Mr Wang. Mr Wang was equally adamant that he received $6,000 cash from Mr Chen. The more likely conclusion is that a cash payment was made, although not on 23 December 2023.
The rent summary does not resolve the issue. The applicant’s rent summary records total rent due of $115,200, rent paid of $6,000, and outstanding arrears of $109,200. However, the original digital file and metadata became an issue during the proceeding. Mr Wang had not produced the native file by the 10 April hearing, and the issue was not pursued or clarified at the final hearing. I therefore do not know when the rent summary was first created.
I also have reservations regarding Mr Wang’s explanation for not pursuing rent earlier. If rent of $1,200 per week had genuinely remained unpaid for a lengthy period, I would ordinarily expect some form of demand or enforcement action much earlier, even allowing for friendship, business dealings, property development partnership, and the verbal rent-to-buy arrangement between Mr Wang and Mr Chen.
Mr Wang has a statutory duty to mitigate his loss: see section 49 of the Act. His inaction affects the weight I give to the applicant’s arrears calculation. It does not, however, disprove the existence of a tenancy between Mr Chen and the applicant.
Drawing the evidence together, I find that there was a tenancy agreement between Mr Chen and the applicant. Mr Chen accepted that he was to rent the property first and purchase it later. Mr Wang’s evidence also proceeded on the basis that rent was payable pending the anticipated purchase. There was therefore occupation in consideration for rent.
The difficulty for the applicant is that Mr Chen had vacated the premises by late February 2024 after returning to Auckland from China. He no longer resided at the property. Any claim for possession against him is therefore moot.
As to rent arrears, Mr Wang’s focus throughout the proceeding was directed primarily at Ms Jiao rather than Mr Chen. Had the applicant pursued Mr Chen for rent arrears, the relevant period would likely have been from 26 August 2023 to late February 2024.
However, I decline to go further than holding that there was a residential tenancy agreement between Mr Chen and the applicant. If Mr Wang wishes to pursue rent arrears against Mr Chen, leave is granted for him to file a further application with the Tribunal and draw the Registry’s attention to allocating the matter before me for determination of any arrears owing. At that time, I will also consider Mr Wang’s compliance with section 49 of the Act. Ms Jiao’s position - analysis
I now turn to the position of the first respondent, Ms Jiao. Her position is materially different from that of the second respondent, Mr Chen.
While Mr Chen accepted that there was a residential tenancy agreement involving rent, and I have found on the evidence that such an agreement existed between Mr Chen and Mr Wang, Ms Jiao maintained throughout the proceeding that there was no tenancy agreement between herself and the applicant.
Mr Pang, counsel for Ms Jiao, submitted that the applicant must establish a contract between Wells Oasis Limited and Ms Jiao. I accept that submission.
The definition of a tenancy under section 2 of the Act requires an agreement, whether express or implied, under which a person is granted a right to occupy residential premises in consideration for rent. That necessarily imports fundamental principles of contract formation.
The applicant must therefore prove, on the balance of probabilities, that Ms Jiao had knowledge of, and agreed to, an arrangement under which she would occupy the premises in return for rent.
In my view, the evidence does not establish that such an agreement existed between Mr Wang and Ms Jiao.
The starting point is the manner in which Ms Jiao’s name came to appear on the tenancy agreement. The evidence shows that it was Mr Chen who asked Mr Wang to place Ms Jiao’s name on the agreement because Ms Jiao was dealing with their daughter’s school enrolment matters.
Was Ms Jiao aware of, or privy to, the broader rent-to-buy arrangement between Mr Wang and Mr Chen? In my view, the evidence does not establish that she was.
During cross-examination by Mr Taylor, Mr Chen confirmed: “ Were the discussions around your purchase of the property just between you and Mr Wang?” “要购买房子的这件事，是只是您跟王先生做了讨论吗？ ” “是的，没有其他人。” Yes, no one else.”
Mr Chen further confirmed that no one else was involved in those discussions.
This evidence is significant. It demonstrates that the alleged arrangement, including any rental component, was negotiated between Mr Wang and Mr Chen. There is no evidence that Mr Wang made any offer of tenancy directly to Ms Jiao, or that Ms Jiao accepted such an offer.
If anything, the dealings between Ms Jiao and Mr Wang appeared to be confined to facilitating the enrolment of her daughter at Campbells Bay School.
The social media communications between Ms Jiao and Mr Wang concerned changing the name on documents to Ms Jiao and matters connected with supporting the school enrolment process.
Likewise, the evidence indicates that Mr Chen directed Ms Jiao to provide her driver licence to Mr Wang for the purpose of completing the tenancy documentation.
The evidence in this regard included Mr Wang’s statement: Mr Wang: “最早的一份是一页纸的简易合同，这份正式合同是应陈禹先生的要求准备的。” “The initial tenancy agreement was a simple one-page tenancy agreement. On Mr Yu Chen’s request, I made a formal tenancy agreement.”
Mr Wang also confirmed in evidence that he sent the agreement to Mr Chen via WeChat: “是通过微信发送给他的。 “Through WeChat.”
Mr Chen confirmed in his evidence: “王先生说是发给了我这个合同，完了我转发给了焦女士。” “Mr Wang sent me the residential tenancy agreement, and then I forwarded it to Ms Jiao.”
Up to this point, there is no evidence to suggest that Ms Jiao was involved in discussions about a rent-to-buy arrangement or a residential tenancy arrangement.
There is, however, evidence supporting the proposition that the tenancy documentation was created for school enrolment purposes.
The evidence establishes that Mr Chen and Ms Jiao wished to enrol their daughter at Campbells Bay School and that the Kenmure Avenue address was relevant because it fell within the school zone.
In answer to my question regarding when she discussed transferring their daughter from Oteha Valley School to Campbells Bay School, Ms Jiao said: “这是我们一直以来就想做的事情，包括 Forest Hill 这个合作项目的开展，完全都是因为我女儿上学的事情。 We've always wanted to do this That's why they started the cooperation on the Forest Hill project. Because we always wanted our daughter to attend Campbells Bay School.”
After hearing that evidence, I asked Ms Jiao why the transfer had not occurred earlier. Ms Jiao replied: “更早发生需要机会，不是说我想让它发生它就能发生。” “For it to happen earlier it needs an opportunity It's not something that can happen just because I wanted it to.”
The evidence further supports the conclusion that an initial one-page tenancy document existed, but that Mr Chen considered it insufficient and requested that Mr Wang prepare a more formal tenancy agreement for enrolment purposes.
Mr Chen then asked that Ms Jiao’s name be placed on that document so that she could arrange the necessary supporting documentation for enrolment, including utilities.
This explanation is consistent with Mr Chen’s evidence: “因为孩子办入学，我是没有时间去的啊，我是需要工作的。” “Because of the child’s school enrolment, I did not have time to deal with it because I needed to work.”
Mr Chen then explained why the documents may have been changed into Ms Jiao’s name: “所以说这个东西有可能就会转成焦女士的名字，让她去办理，因为她办理，我不能用我的名字去办理。” “So it’s possible it was changed into Ms Jiao’s name so she could handle it, because she was the one dealing with the enrolment matters.”
He also said: “所有的这个孩子办入学的手续都是焦女士去做。” “All the procedures for the child’s school enrolment were handled by Ms Jiao.”
Ms Jiao did not dispute that this may have been the position, although she said she could not clearly recall how the arrangements came about.
Accordingly, the more likely explanation is that the “formal” residential tenancy agreement was created for administrative purposes, namely to satisfy Campbells Bay School enrolment requirements, rather than to create a legally binding landlord and tenant relationship between Mr Wang and Ms Jiao.
In my view, if the intention had been to create a legally binding residential tenancy agreement between Mr Wang and Ms Jiao, there must at least have been some discussion between them regarding the essential terms of the arrangement, including rent and the tenancy length (fixed-term or periodic).
It is inconceivable that a tenant could become bound by a residential tenancy agreement for rent of approximately $1,200 per week without any evidence of discussion of those fundamental terms before the agreement is finalised.
The fact that Mr Wang did not pursue rent arrears against Ms Jiao for more than two years reinforces my view that there was never a residential tenancy agreement between them. A further fact supporting this view is that Mr Chen vacated the premises in February 2024 after returning from China. Mr Wang must have known that Mr Chen had vacated 44B Kenmure Avenue because they were close friends and involved together in property development partnerships. Yet no enforcement action for unpaid rent was taken until the commencement of the High Court proceeding between Mr Chen and Ms Jiao.
This conclusion is supported by Mr Wang’s own evidence in his will-say statement, where he stated: “Mr Chen repeatedly assured me that the outstanding rent would be resolved upon completion of a property transaction...”
That evidence demonstrates that Mr Wang himself understood the arrangement as part of a broader property transaction involving Mr Chen, rather than as a standalone tenancy involving Ms Jiao.
I also take into account Ms Jiao’s evidence that she did not enter into any tenancy agreement. It was recorded during the hearing that she “adamantly and flatly denies” that such an agreement was provided to her or that she entered into it. I accept that evidence. It is consistent with the surrounding circumstances.
The tenancy agreement relied upon by the applicant is of limited evidential value in establishing a binding contract with Ms Jiao. It was not signed by her. There is no evidence that it was explained to her, accepted by her, or otherwise assented to by her.
In circumstances where the alleged rent was approximately $1,200 per week, the absence of evidence of execution or a signed agreement is significant and goes directly to whether any agreement was formed.
The conduct of the parties is also inconsistent with Ms Jiao being a tenant. Mr Wang did not pursue Ms Jiao for rent at any stage. He did not issue demands or take enforcement action against her.
Mr Wang’s explanation for not pursuing rent was that he relied upon assurances from Mr Chen that the matter would ultimately be resolved as part of a property transaction.
That explanation relates to Mr Chen. It does not explain why no action was taken against Ms Jiao if she were genuinely regarded as a tenant jointly liable for rent.
A reasonable landlord would ordinarily pursue all tenants for rent arrears. The absence of any such conduct strongly suggests that Ms Jiao was not regarded as a tenant at the relevant time.
The nature of the occupation also supports this conclusion. The evidence indicates that the family’s primary home remained in Oteha Valley and that the Kenmure Avenue property was used for the specific and temporary purpose of facilitating school enrolment.
There is no clear evidence that the family permanently relocated to 44B Kenmure Avenue.
While Mr Wang gave evidence that there were furnishings at the premises, that fact alone does not establish a tenancy. Temporary occupation, even with personal belongings present, does not satisfy the statutory requirement of occupation in consideration for rent pursuant to an agreement.
Drawing these matters together, I am not satisfied that the applicant has established the elements of contract formation as between Mr Wang and Ms Jiao.
In particular, there is no evidence of offer and acceptance between them, no evidence that Ms Jiao had knowledge of or intended to be bound by a tenancy agreement, and no evidence that her occupation was granted in consideration for rent.
Accordingly, I find that there was no tenancy agreement between Wells Oasis Limited and Ms Jiao, and therefore no landlord and tenant relationship between them.
It follows that I have no jurisdiction to make orders against Ms Jiao under the Act.

Is Ms Jiao an Agent of Mr Chen?

At the conclusion of the hearing, Mr Taylor argued that even if Ms Jiao did not personally negotiate the tenancy, Mr Chen acted on her behalf, such that the tenancy arrangement and related documents legally extended to her through principles analogous to agency.
As I understood his submissions, Mr Taylor contended that the arrangement was intended to benefit the family unit as a whole. In support of that proposition, he relied on the following matters: a. the daughter’s school enrolment was the reason for obtaining the formal tenancy agreement; b. Ms Jiao handled the enrolment process; c. utilities were transferred into Ms Jiao’s name; d. the family occupied the premises for a period of time, although the precise duration remained unclear on the evidence; and e. Mr Chen paid $6,000 rent to Mr Wang.
The overall thrust of Mr Taylor’s argument was that, even if Mr Chen was the principal communicator with Mr Wang, he was acting on behalf of the household and family unit. Accordingly, ordinary agency principles applied, thereby making Ms Jiao connected to and bound by the tenancy arrangement.
Mr Pang submitted in response that there was no evidence before the Tribunal establishing that Ms Jiao authorised Mr Chen to act on her behalf in creating a tenancy agreement, and that the evidence remained too uncertain and inconsistent to establish any binding tenancy relationship involving her.
As I understood Mr Pang’s submissions, his position was that: a. there was no reliable evidence that Ms Jiao agreed to any tenancy; b. no signed tenancy agreement existed; and c. there was no clear evidence that Ms Jiao authorised Mr Chen to bind her legally.
I accept Mr Pang’s submissions in that regard.
There is no evidence that Ms Jiao asked Mr Chen to approach Mr Wang to create a formal residential tenancy agreement for school enrolment or otherwise.
Rather, the evidence establishes that it was Mr Chen who requested the more formal tenancy agreement from Mr Wang because he considered the earlier one-page agreement insufficient for school enrolment purposes.
Ms Jiao’s name came to appear on the documentation only because Mr Chen asked Mr Wang to place her name on the agreement, given that Ms Jiao had primary day-to-day care of their daughter and was attending to the enrolment process while Mr Chen focused on work.
I struggle to see any evidential basis for the proposition that Ms Jiao acted as Mr Chen’s agent, or alternatively that Mr Chen acted as Ms Jiao’s agent in entering into a tenancy agreement with Mr Wang.
Nor did Mr Taylor refer me to any authority supporting the proposition that Ms Jiao would become bound by a tenancy agreement entered into by Mr Chen merely because they were husband and wife at the material time.
In my view, the evidence goes no further than establishing that Ms Jiao became involved in administrative and enrolment-related matters connected with the property and the schooling of the parties’ daughter.
That involvement does not establish a legally binding tenancy agreement.
Accordingly, I find that there was no agency relationship capable of binding Ms Jiao to any tenancy agreement entered into between Mr Chen and Mr Wang. Conclusion Case against Mr Chen
I find that there was a binding residential tenancy agreement between the applicant and Mr Chen.
However, the application for possession against Mr Chen is now moot because he no longer resides at the premises.
I am unable to determine the quantum of any rent arrears owing because the applicant’s case was directed primarily toward Ms Jiao rather than Mr Chen, and the evidence regarding the period of occupation and arrears remains insufficiently precise for final determination.
Leave is therefore granted to Mr Wang to file a further application in the Tenancy Tribunal should he wish to pursue rent arrears against Mr Chen.
If such an application is filed, the applicant should advise the Registry that the matter is to be referred back to me.
Should Mr Wang pursue rent arrears against Mr Chen, he will need to provide precise evidence regarding: a. the date Mr Chen vacated the premises; b. the rental period claimed; c. the calculation of arrears; and d. the steps taken to mitigate loss pursuant to section 49 of the Act. Case against Ms Jiao
I find that there was no landlord and tenant relationship between Mr Wang and Ms Jiao.
The Tribunal therefore has no jurisdiction to determine the applicant’s claim against Ms Jiao for rent arrears or possession under the Act.
The application against Ms Jiao is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5370767 — Rent arrears at 44B Kenmure Avenue, Forrest Hill, Auckland 0620

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5370767 — Rent arrears at 44B Kenmure Avenue, Forrest Hill, Auckland 0620

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is Ms Jiao an Agent of Mr Chen?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is Ms Jiao an Agent of Mr Chen?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions