Tenancy Tribunal dismisses dispute between co-tenants for lack of jurisdiction
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed a claim brought by a tenant against a co-tenant, stating that it does not have the authority to resolve disputes between co-tenants. The Tribunal ruled that the parties were co-tenants, not landlord and tenant, and thus the claim fell outside its jurisdiction.
⚖️ Legal holding
The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to hear disputes between co-tenants.
📖 What the law says
This section states that the Tenancy Tribunal has the power to decide disputes that happen between landlords and tenants. These disputes must be about a tenancy that falls under this Act. The Tribunal can also decide if a property is covered by the Act and if a tenancy agreement exists.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal dismissed a claim brought by a tenant against a co-tenant, ruling that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear disputes between co-tenants under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5120679 1
[2025] NZTT 5120679
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT AUCKLAND | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA KI TĀMAKI MAKAURAU
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Tenant
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Landlord
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE], Heritage Estate
ORDER
This application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Reasons:
1. This is a decision on the papers.
2. This matter was scheduled before me on 21 February 2025 to decide jurisdiction.
3. Prior to the hearing, the applicant, sought an adjournment of the hearing because she was overseas.
4. I declined the adjournment but directed that the parties attendance was excused and that they make submissions in writing on the question of whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction
Background
5. In their application, the applicant names [NAME] as the landlord.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5120679 2
6. The applicant claims among other things that the respondent, [NAME], unlawfully entered her boarding room, and interfered with the applicant’s reasonable peace, comfort, or privacy by opening the windows, the respondent permitted their brother to sleep in the living room, permitted their mother to live in the garage, and unlawfully terminated the applicant’s tenancy.
7. The tenancy agreement filed as evidence in this case is a boarding house tenancy agreement. The agreement names [COMPANY] as the landlord. The applicant and the respondent are both named as tenants.
8. The applicant states, however, that the respondent was a sublandlord.
Legal principles
9. The long title of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) states, among other things, it is a establish a Tribunal to determine disputes between landlords and tenants of residential properties:
An Act to reform and restate the law relating to residential tenancies, to define the rights and obligations of landlords and tenants of residential properties, to establish a tribunal to determine expeditiously disputes arising between such landlords and tenants, to establish a fund in which bonds payable by such tenants are to be held, and to repeal the Tenancy Act 1955 and the Rent Appeal Act 1973 and their amendments
10. The RTA sets out the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under the heading “Jurisdiction” at ss 77-85. Section 77(1) is the foundational subsection:
77 Jurisdiction of Tribunal
(1) The Tribunal has, subject to the Limitation Act 2010, jurisdiction to determine in accordance with this Act any dispute that—
(a) exists between a landlord and a tenant or between a landlord and the guarantor of a tenant; and
(b) relates to any tenancy to which this Act applies or to which this Act did apply at any material time.
(Emphasis added)
11. It follows, for the Tribunal to have jurisdiction to determine a dispute under s 77(1), there must be:
a. a dispute must be between a landlord and a tenant (s 77(1)(a)); and
b. the RTA must apply to the tenancy (s 77(1)(b)).
12. In s 2 of RTA “unless the context otherwise requires” the RTA applies the following meanings to tenant and tenancy:
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0120/latest/link.aspx?search=sw_096be8ed81a4b016_jurisdiction_25_se&p=1&id=DLM2033100
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5120679 3
landlord, in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, means the grantor of a tenancy of the premises under the agreement...
tenant, in relation to any residential premises that are the subject of a tenancy agreement, means the grantee of a tenancy of the premises under agreement…
tenancy, in relation to any residential premises, means the right to occupy the premises (whether exclusively or otherwise) in consideration for rent …
(Emphasis added)
13. There is no getting out of the Act if there is a residential tenancy. Section 4 of the RTA provides that:
This Act applies to every tenancy for residential purposes except as specifically provided.
14. Consonant with s 4, s 11 of the RTA provides that an agreement to exclude the Act is “of no effect”.1
Was the respondent a sublandlord?
15. The applicant submits:2
[NAME] and [NAME] became [NAME] friends on August 26, 2024. We confirmed the room reservation with a deposit on August 22th and moved in on August 25th. Both parties agreed that the rent would start from September 1st. [NAME] has provided all payment records as evidence to support this. [NAME] has consistently paid the rent on time to [NAME].
16. The respondent does not dispute that applicant paid their rent to them. Nonetheless, they maintain that they were not the applicant’s landlord.
17. It is the substance of the arrangement that matters. It does not matter what labels parties attach to themselves. Therefore, if the respondent were the landlord, it would not matter that they were described in the tenancy agreement as a “tenant”. As District Court Judge Neave commented in this context:3
[T]he labels that the parties give to the arrangement will not and cannot be determinative. It will always be necessary to examine the full facts of the situation and determine what the substance of the arrangement was.
18. The applicant further submitted:
1 There are limited exceptions set out in s 11 that do not apply here. 2 Email to the Tribunal dated 20 February 2025. 3 In Watson v Watson DC Christchurch CIV-2020-009-2030, 14 September 2010 at [9].
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5120679 4
It was [NAME] who rented the entire property (28/11Harrison Road ), which then led to the subsequent residents Therefore, she acted as a sublandlord. All of our rental payments were made to [NAME]. The legal primary residents of the room are
• [NAME] • [NAME] • [NAME], • [NAME] and [NAME].
19. At a later point, the applicant describes the respondent as a “co-tenant”:4
Later, on December 21, [NAME]’s mother mentioned that 5 aunts would be coming to the house for dinner the following week. I descripted the situation to [NAME], who lives with me, and asked for his advice. He expressed disapproval of [NAME] and her family’s behavior. Therefore, I politely approached [NAME] as a co-tenant
20. Having read the file, I cannot find a sound evidential basis to find that the respondent was the applicant’s landlord. Rather, the evidence points to the parties being co-tenants.
21. The tenancy agreement – which is a contemporaneous document created prior to this dispute - records the parties as both being tenants. The fact that the applicant paid their rent to the respondent is neither here not there. Flatmates will commonly pay rent to one person, such as a “head tenant” who then on- pays the entire rent to the landlord.
22. The Tribunal’s role is to decide cases between landlords and tenants; not disputes between flatmates. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear flatmate-against-flatmate claims.
23. I am satisfied that the parties were flatmates. Therefore, the Tribunal does not have the power to hear the application.
24. However, if I am wrong in finding that the parties are flatmates, I go on to consider if the respondent were a sublandlord or landlord whether the tenancy is excluded by s 5(1)(n) of the RTA.
If the respondent were a landlord, is the tenancy excluded by s 5(1)(n)?
22. Section 5 of the RTA sets out a variety of circumstances where a tenancy is excluded from the Act. Under s 5(1)(n), the RTA “shall not apply”:
(n) where the premises, not being a boarding house, continue to be used, during the tenancy, principally as a place of residence by the landlord or the owner of the premises or by any member of the landlord’s or owner’s family…
4 See n 2.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5120679 5
23. The applicant’s claim is in essence that the respondent and the respondent’s family dominated the premises. The applicant’s own allegations are that they used the premises as a place of residence to the exclusion of the applicant.
24. It follows, even if the respondent were the landlord or the sublandlord, the claim would be excluded.
Conclusion
25. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this claim. It is dismissed.
26. I note the Disputes Tribunal may have jurisdiction to hear such an application. The applicant may wish to lodge a claim in that Tribunal. If so, they should include a copy of this decision in their application to prove that the Tribunal has found it does not have jurisdiction to hear the application.
R Kee
03 March 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5120679 6
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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5120679 7
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 Tribunal determined that the parties were flatmates, not landlord and tenant.
- The tenancy agreement listed both the applicant and the respondent as tenants.
- The Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited to disputes between landlords and tenants.
- The fact that the applicant paid rent to the respondent did not prove a sublandlord relationship.
- Even if the respondent were a landlord, the tenancy would be excluded because the premises were primarily used by the landlord's family.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The applicant's claim that the respondent was a sublandlord was not supported by sufficient evidence.
- The applicant's argument that the respondent rented the entire property and then sub-let rooms was not accepted.
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 claim for lack of jurisdiction.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about alleged interference with the tenant's peace, comfort, and privacy by a co-tenant.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the parties were co-tenants, not landlord and tenant.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, section 77, was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the parties were co-tenants, not landlord and tenant, and thus the Tribunal had no jurisdiction over the dispute.
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 consider filing a claim in the Disputes Tribunal if the Tenancy Tribunal lacks jurisdiction.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The tenancy agreement and payment records were relevant documents.