Tenancy Tribunal Dismisses Claim Over Shared Living Space
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed a tenant's claim against a landlord over shared living space because the parties lacked a written agreement, as required by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
⚖️ Legal holding
The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over shared premises without a written agreement between the parties.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal dismissed the claim due to lack of jurisdiction over shared premises without a written agreement.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed a claim brought by a tenant against a landlord over shared living space due to lack of jurisdiction under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 5(1)(n), which requires a written agreement between the parties.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5134748 1
[2025] NZTT 5134748
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT REMOTE LOCATION | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], Wai O Taiki Bay, Auckland 1072
ORDER
1. The application is dismissed.
Reasons:
1. The Landlord attended the hearing.
2. The applicant is required to establish the claim to the civil law standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities.
3. The Landlord claims he is the head-tenant under a sub-tenancy and the tenant is actually the sub-tenant.
4. While there is a dispute between a Landlord and a Tenant (s 77), s 5(1)(n) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act) states the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction where the occupation of the ‘premises’ by the Landlord and the Tenant is concurrent.
5. There are no self-contained premises. The parties share a home. It is akin to a flat-sharing arrangement, except, there is no written agreement between the parties, contrary to the requirements of the Act. That is not fatal to the Landlord’s claim, but s 5(1)(n) is.
6. The parties have not contracted back into the Act.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5134748 2
7. The Applicant has not satisfied me that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is engaged.
[NAME]
13 March 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5134748 3
Please read carefully: Visit justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals for more information on rehearings and appeals.
Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has happened. For example: • you did not get the letter telling you the date of the hearing, or • the adjudicator improperly admitted or rejected evidence, or • new evidence, relating to the original application, has become available.
You must give reasons and evidence to support your application for a rehearing. A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. You must apply within five working days of the decision using the Application for Rehearing form: justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf
Right of Appeal Both the landlord and the tenant can file an appeal. You should file your appeal at the District Court where the original hearing took place. The cost for an appeal is $260. You must apply within 10 working days after the decision is issued using this Appeal to the District Court form: justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals
Grounds for an appeal You can appeal if you think the decision was wrong, but not because you don’t like the decision. For some cases, there’ll be no right to appeal. For example, you can’t appeal: • against an interim order • a final order for the payment of less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work worth less than $1000.
Enforcement Where the Tribunal made an order about money or property this is called a civil debt. The Ministry of Justice Collections Team can assist with enforcing civil debt. You can contact the collections team on [PHONE] or go to justice.govt.nz/fines/civil-debt for forms and information.
Notice to a party ordered to pay money or vacate premises, etc. Failure to comply with any order may result in substantial additional costs for enforcement. It may also involve being ordered to appear in the District Court for an examination of your means or seizure of your property.
If you require further help or information regarding this matter, visit tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing- decisions or phone Tenancy Services on [PHONE].
Mēna ka hiahia koe ki ētahi atu awhina, kōrero ranei mo tēnei take, haere ki tenei ipurangi tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, waea atu ki Ratonga Takirua ma runga [PHONE] ranei.
https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Forms/TT-Application-for-rehearing.pdf https://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/tenancy/rehearings-appeals/ https://www.justice.govt.nz/fines/about-civil-debt/ https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions http://www.tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5134748 4
A manaomia nisi faamatalaga poo se fesoasoani, e uiga i lau mataupu, asiasi ifo le matou aupega tafailagi: tenancy.govt.nz/disputes/enforcing-decisions, pe fesootai mai le Tenancy Services i le numera [PHONE].
Reasons:
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The Landlord claimed he is the head-tenant under a sub-tenancy.
- The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over shared premises without a written agreement.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The Tenant did not provide a written agreement between the parties.
- The parties share a home without separate self-contained premises.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed the tenant's claim against the landlord over shared living space.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about a tenant claiming rights over shared living space against a landlord.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to dismiss the claim because the parties lacked a written agreement, as required by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 5(1)(n) was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the lack of a written agreement between the parties.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure they have a written agreement if they wish to bring a claim over shared living space.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify any particular evidence or documents that mattered.