What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5448292?

The tribunal order states: The application by Coleridge New Zealand Limited for possession of the

How much money was awarded in case 5448292?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5448292?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13235546-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5448292?

The tribunal order states: The application by Coleridge New Zealand Limited for possession of the

How much money was awarded in case 5448292?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5448292?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13235546-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

9B Aralia Road, Sunnynook, Auckland 0620 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5448292 — Leaks

Order

The application by Coleridge New Zealand Limited for possession of the premises at 9B Aralia Road, Sunnynook, Auckland 0620 is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, by telephone, with an interpreter.
The tenancy began in the names of two tenants on 12/9/2025 and was for a fixed term to 12/9/2026 at a rent of $850.00 per week.
However, a clause in the tenancy agreement set out that “If 52 weeks of rent be paid in one go, the total rent can be discounted by 5%”.
The tenant confirmed that the bond and 52 weeks rent was paid at the start of the tenancy at a discounted rate of $807.50 per week.
The landlord submitted that there was an agreement between the parties that the tenancy would end on 30/12/2025 and the tenants would move out because of health and safety concerns, leaks and structural issues.
The landlord suggested he had discovered, after agreeing to the developer signing the tenancy agreement on behalf of the Company, that the premises did not have a code compliance certificate.
When he found out on 3/1/2026 that the tenants had moved back into the premises, without consent, the landlord applied for possession.
The landlord confirmed he had refunded what he believed was his share of the rent and bond payment made.
In response the tenant against whom the landlord had made the application disagreed that the tenancy had ended because only part of the rent and bond paid had been refunded.
While the tenant agreed both tenants had moved back into the premises, he had now found another place to rent and had moved out.
However, his sister, against whom the landlord had not applied was still in the premises because she had not received her share of the rent refund. Legislative requirements
Under section 64 on the application of any person entitled to possession of the premises following termination of the tenancy, the Tribunal shall make an order granting possession of the premises to that person.
Section 65 RTA provides for the 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 other 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.
The High Court in Sergeant v Nigro and Tapsell [2019] NZHC 328 considered section 65. The Court found there were three conditions which have to be met before and order can be made: (a) The premises the subject of the application are residential premises. (b) The applicant for possession is entitled to possession of those premises. (c) 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.

Are the premises residential premises?

Section 2 of the RTA defines residential premises as, “any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence, whether or not the occupation or intended occupation for residential premises is or would be unlawful.”
“Premises” includes: (a) any part of any premises; and (b) any land and appurtenances, other than facilities; and (c) any mobile home, caravan, or other means of shelter placed or erected upon any land and intended for occupation on that land.
It follows from the definition that the premises are clearly residential premises. Both parties agreed the premises were a new build dwelling.

Is the applicant entitled to possession?

The landlord submitted he was entitled to possession because he was a director of the Company who was the landlord of the premises.
Further that he had an agreement with the tenants that the tenancy would end on 30/12/2025 and he had repaid his share of the rent and bond.
The wording of section 65 is clear that the exercise of the jurisdiction does not involve a discretion. If the primary jurisdictional requirements are satisfied, then the Tribunal must make an order for possession.

Are the tenants entitled to possession?

Although he did not agree the tenancy had ended the tenant against whom the application was made confirmed he had moved out.
I find the correspondence evidence provided by the landlord does not persuade me that the tenancy ended on 30/12/2025. Rather I consider there is still a valid tenancy agreement in place for which the tenants had paid rent.
While the tenant who this application was filed against has moved out of the premises, the remaining tenant has not.
The remaining tenant remains in possession as a tenant under the terms of the tenancy agreement entered into on behalf of the Company, is not a squatter or trespasser.
The landlord is not entitled to a possession order and the claim is dismissed.
If the landlord has an issue with the person who signed the tenancy agreement with the tenants, then that is a matter between the landlord and that person, not the tenants.
No filing fee is awarded because the landlord was unsuccessful.
Suppression is not granted pursuant to section 95A because the landlord did not succeed with the proceedings.

Order

The application by Coleridge New Zealand Limited for possession of the premises at 9B Aralia Road, Sunnynook, Auckland 0620 is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing, by telephone, with an interpreter.
The tenancy began in the names of two tenants on 12/9/2025 and was for a fixed term to 12/9/2026 at a rent of $850.00 per week.
However, a clause in the tenancy agreement set out that “If 52 weeks of rent be paid in one go, the total rent can be discounted by 5%”.
The tenant confirmed that the bond and 52 weeks rent was paid at the start of the tenancy at a discounted rate of $807.50 per week.
The landlord submitted that there was an agreement between the parties that the tenancy would end on 30/12/2025 and the tenants would move out because of health and safety concerns, leaks and structural issues.
The landlord suggested he had discovered, after agreeing to the developer signing the tenancy agreement on behalf of the Company, that the premises did not have a code compliance certificate.
When he found out on 3/1/2026 that the tenants had moved back into the premises, without consent, the landlord applied for possession.
The landlord confirmed he had refunded what he believed was his share of the rent and bond payment made.
In response the tenant against whom the landlord had made the application disagreed that the tenancy had ended because only part of the rent and bond paid had been refunded.
While the tenant agreed both tenants had moved back into the premises, he had now found another place to rent and had moved out.
However, his sister, against whom the landlord had not applied was still in the premises because she had not received her share of the rent refund. Legislative requirements
Under section 64 on the application of any person entitled to possession of the premises following termination of the tenancy, the Tribunal shall make an order granting possession of the premises to that person.
Section 65 RTA provides for the 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 other 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.
The High Court in Sergeant v Nigro and Tapsell [2019] NZHC 328 considered section 65. The Court found there were three conditions which have to be met before and order can be made: (a) The premises the subject of the application are residential premises. (b) The applicant for possession is entitled to possession of those premises. (c) 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.

Are the premises residential premises?

Section 2 of the RTA defines residential premises as, “any premises used or intended for occupation by any person as a place of residence, whether or not the occupation or intended occupation for residential premises is or would be unlawful.”
“Premises” includes: (a) any part of any premises; and (b) any land and appurtenances, other than facilities; and (c) any mobile home, caravan, or other means of shelter placed or erected upon any land and intended for occupation on that land.
It follows from the definition that the premises are clearly residential premises. Both parties agreed the premises were a new build dwelling.

Is the applicant entitled to possession?

The landlord submitted he was entitled to possession because he was a director of the Company who was the landlord of the premises.
Further that he had an agreement with the tenants that the tenancy would end on 30/12/2025 and he had repaid his share of the rent and bond.
The wording of section 65 is clear that the exercise of the jurisdiction does not involve a discretion. If the primary jurisdictional requirements are satisfied, then the Tribunal must make an order for possession.

Are the tenants entitled to possession?

Although he did not agree the tenancy had ended the tenant against whom the application was made confirmed he had moved out.
I find the correspondence evidence provided by the landlord does not persuade me that the tenancy ended on 30/12/2025. Rather I consider there is still a valid tenancy agreement in place for which the tenants had paid rent.
While the tenant who this application was filed against has moved out of the premises, the remaining tenant has not.
The remaining tenant remains in possession as a tenant under the terms of the tenancy agreement entered into on behalf of the Company, is not a squatter or trespasser.
The landlord is not entitled to a possession order and the claim is dismissed.
If the landlord has an issue with the person who signed the tenancy agreement with the tenants, then that is a matter between the landlord and that person, not the tenants.
No filing fee is awarded because the landlord was unsuccessful.
Suppression is not granted pursuant to section 95A because the landlord did not succeed with the proceedings.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5448292 — Leaks at 9B Aralia Road, Sunnynook, Auckland 0620

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5448292 — Leaks at 9B Aralia Road, Sunnynook, Auckland 0620

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the premises residential premises?

Is the applicant entitled to possession?

Are the tenants entitled to possession?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Are the premises residential premises?

Is the applicant entitled to possession?

Are the tenants entitled to possession?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions