What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5406830?

The tribunal order states: Glenice Hilda McGregor is granted possession of the premises at 6 Bramley

How much money was awarded in case 5406830?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5406830?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5406830?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13009025-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5406830?

The tribunal order states: Glenice Hilda McGregor is granted possession of the premises at 6 Bramley

How much money was awarded in case 5406830?

Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5406830?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5406830?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13009025-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

6 Bramley Drive, Farm Cove, Auckland 2012 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5406830 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5406830 — 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

Glenice Hilda McGregor is granted possession of the premises at 6 Bramley Drive, Farm Cove, Auckland 2012 immediately.
Vaughn Harold Cassidy must pay Glenice Hilda McGregor $28.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 22 January 2026.
The premises are owned by Glenice Hilda McGregor. Vaughn Harold Cassidy is Ms McGregor’s nephew. The premises previously belonged to Ms McGregor’s parents. Ms McGregor says that she inherited the premises some time in late 2024. Mr Cassidy has lived in the premises since 2020. He does not pay rent or any outgoings. Ms McGregor seeks an order from the Tribunal granting her possession of the premises.
At the beginning of the hearing, Mr Cassidy sought an adjournment, which I declined. The Tribunal must exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that promotes the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes. 1 To promote this purpose, adjournments should only be granted when there are good reasons to do so.
Mr Cassidy claims that he received the notice of hearing on 16 January 2026 and has not had enough time to prepare. The notice of hearing and application were sent to Mr Cassidy by post on 6 January 2026. They are deemed to have been served on Mr Cassidy on 12 January 2026, which is four working days later. 2 Mr Cassidy filed submissions with the Tribunal on 19 January 2026, which indicates he has had some time to consider the application and prepare a response. The issue to be determined is narrow and relatively straightforward. I consider Mr Cassidy has had sufficient time to consider and respond to the application.
The general provisions of the RTA do not apply to this case. This is because the RTA applies to all residential tenancies, unless specifically excluded. 3 A tenancy, in relation to residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises in consideration for rent. 4 Mr Cassidy does not pay rent and therefore, there is no tenancy. Even if there were a tenancy, it would be excluded from the general provisions of the RTA under section 5(1)(n). This section states that the RTA does not apply to premises which, during the tenancy, are used principally as a place of residence by the owner or a member of the owner’s family. Mr Cassidy uses the premises principally as a place of residence and is a member of Ms McGregor’s family.
Ms McGregor relies on section 65 RTA to make her application. This section states: (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 granted 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 other remedy that may be available to the person lawfully entitled to possession of the premises. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 85. 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 136(6). 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 4. 4 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 2. (3) To avoid doubt, the Tribunal has jurisdiction under this section even though the premises are not subject to a tenancy agreement.
The case of Simons and Holland Beckett Trustees no 11 as Trustees for the Newald Trust v McLean [2022] 4316762 sets out the correct test and considerations for the Tribunal when determining applications under section 65 RTA. The relevant questions to answer are: a. Are the premises residential? b. Who has the lawful right to grant a right of occupation? c. Has that person granted the occupant a right to occupy the premises? d. If not, is the occupant entitled to possession of the premises?

Are the premises residential?

Yes, the premises is a residential dwelling house.

Who has the lawful right to grant a right of occupation?

As the registered proprietor, Glenise McGregor has a lawful right to grant a right of occupation of the premises.

Has the person granted the occupant a right to occupy the premises?

No. I have not seen any evidence that Ms McGregor has granted Mr Cassidy a right to occupy the premises since becoming the registered proprietor.

If not, is the occupant entitled to possession of the premises?

No. No evidence to suggest Mr Cassidy is entitled to possession of the premises was submitted. Mr Cassidy claims that the will of his late grandparents, which leaves the premises to Ms McGregor, was unlawfully changed before they died however, no evidence to this effect was submitted. Even if it was, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine the validity of a will. Mr Cassidy has not filed legal proceedings challenging the will in the High Court. Even if he had, the District and High Courts have made it clear that the Tribunal cannot evaluate the merits of any claim in another court when determining whether an applicant has a right of possession. 5 5 Chou v Chou [2016] NZDC 15768 at [21]; Sergeant v Nigro & Tapsell [2019] NZHC at [91] – [94]; Rotier v Cotterill [2021] NZDC 23060 at [7]. Conclusion
I am satisfied that a possession order must be granted to the applicant as against Vaughn Cassidy, and that is to have immediate effect. Filing fee
Because Glenice Hilda McGregor has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5406830 — 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

Glenice Hilda McGregor is granted possession of the premises at 6 Bramley Drive, Farm Cove, Auckland 2012 immediately.
Vaughn Harold Cassidy must pay Glenice Hilda McGregor $28.00 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing on 22 January 2026.
The premises are owned by Glenice Hilda McGregor. Vaughn Harold Cassidy is Ms McGregor’s nephew. The premises previously belonged to Ms McGregor’s parents. Ms McGregor says that she inherited the premises some time in late 2024. Mr Cassidy has lived in the premises since 2020. He does not pay rent or any outgoings. Ms McGregor seeks an order from the Tribunal granting her possession of the premises.
At the beginning of the hearing, Mr Cassidy sought an adjournment, which I declined. The Tribunal must exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that promotes the fair and expeditious resolution of disputes. 1 To promote this purpose, adjournments should only be granted when there are good reasons to do so.
Mr Cassidy claims that he received the notice of hearing on 16 January 2026 and has not had enough time to prepare. The notice of hearing and application were sent to Mr Cassidy by post on 6 January 2026. They are deemed to have been served on Mr Cassidy on 12 January 2026, which is four working days later. 2 Mr Cassidy filed submissions with the Tribunal on 19 January 2026, which indicates he has had some time to consider the application and prepare a response. The issue to be determined is narrow and relatively straightforward. I consider Mr Cassidy has had sufficient time to consider and respond to the application.
The general provisions of the RTA do not apply to this case. This is because the RTA applies to all residential tenancies, unless specifically excluded. 3 A tenancy, in relation to residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises in consideration for rent. 4 Mr Cassidy does not pay rent and therefore, there is no tenancy. Even if there were a tenancy, it would be excluded from the general provisions of the RTA under section 5(1)(n). This section states that the RTA does not apply to premises which, during the tenancy, are used principally as a place of residence by the owner or a member of the owner’s family. Mr Cassidy uses the premises principally as a place of residence and is a member of Ms McGregor’s family.
Ms McGregor relies on section 65 RTA to make her application. This section states: (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 granted 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 other remedy that may be available to the person lawfully entitled to possession of the premises. 1 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 85. 2 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 136(6). 3 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 4. 4 Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 2. (3) To avoid doubt, the Tribunal has jurisdiction under this section even though the premises are not subject to a tenancy agreement.
The case of Simons and Holland Beckett Trustees no 11 as Trustees for the Newald Trust v McLean [2022] 4316762 sets out the correct test and considerations for the Tribunal when determining applications under section 65 RTA. The relevant questions to answer are: a. Are the premises residential? b. Who has the lawful right to grant a right of occupation? c. Has that person granted the occupant a right to occupy the premises? d. If not, is the occupant entitled to possession of the premises?

Are the premises residential?

Yes, the premises is a residential dwelling house.

Who has the lawful right to grant a right of occupation?

As the registered proprietor, Glenise McGregor has a lawful right to grant a right of occupation of the premises.

Has the person granted the occupant a right to occupy the premises?

No. I have not seen any evidence that Ms McGregor has granted Mr Cassidy a right to occupy the premises since becoming the registered proprietor.

If not, is the occupant entitled to possession of the premises?

No. No evidence to suggest Mr Cassidy is entitled to possession of the premises was submitted. Mr Cassidy claims that the will of his late grandparents, which leaves the premises to Ms McGregor, was unlawfully changed before they died however, no evidence to this effect was submitted. Even if it was, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine the validity of a will. Mr Cassidy has not filed legal proceedings challenging the will in the High Court. Even if he had, the District and High Courts have made it clear that the Tribunal cannot evaluate the merits of any claim in another court when determining whether an applicant has a right of possession. 5 5 Chou v Chou [2016] NZDC 15768 at [21]; Sergeant v Nigro & Tapsell [2019] NZHC at [91] – [94]; Rotier v Cotterill [2021] NZDC 23060 at [7]. Conclusion
I am satisfied that a possession order must be granted to the applicant as against Vaughn Cassidy, and that is to have immediate effect. Filing fee
Because Glenice Hilda McGregor has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5406830 — Tenancy dispute at 6 Bramley Drive, Farm Cove, Auckland 2012

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5406830 — Tenancy dispute at 6 Bramley Drive, Farm Cove, Auckland 2012

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the premises residential?

Who has the lawful right to grant a right of occupation?

Has the person granted the occupant a right to occupy the premises?

If not, is the occupant entitled to possession of the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the premises residential?

Who has the lawful right to grant a right of occupation?

Has the person granted the occupant a right to occupy the premises?

If not, is the occupant entitled to possession of the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions