Tenancy Tribunal Orders Immediate Possession Against Squatters
📌 In brief
The claimant successfully obtained possession of a property from squatters in Waitoa, New Zealand. After purchasing the property at auction and serving notice, the Tenancy Tribunal ordered the previous owners to vacate immediately under section 65 of the Residential Tenancies Act.
⚖️ Legal holding
A person entitled to possession may obtain an order against a squatter or trespasser pursuant to section 65 of the Residential Tenancies Act.
📖 What the law says
This rule allows a person who has the right to possess a home to ask the Tenancy Tribunal for an order to remove someone who is living there without permission, like a squatter or trespasser. If the Tribunal agrees that the person has no legal right to be there, it must order them to leave and give possession to the applicant.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant successfully obtained possession of the property from squatters under section 65 of the Residential Tenancies Act.
📜 Headnote Official document
The claimant applied for possession of residential premises under section 65 of the Residential Tenancies Act after purchasing a property at auction and serving notice to previous owners who were occupying it. The Tribunal granted an immediate order, finding that the respondents had no legal right to occupy the property.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5499481 1
[2026] NZTT 5499481
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT HAMILTON | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA KI KIRIKIRIROA
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]
ORDER
1. [APPELLANT] is granted possession of the premises at [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] immediately.
2. To avoid doubt, the order in paragraph [1] above, means that any person/s occupying [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] who is/are there without the applicants permission, is/are a squatter/s and may be evicted by an officer of the Ministry of Justice following an application for enforcement of this order.
Reasons:
1. The Applicant has applied for possession of the premises under section 65 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the “Act”). Section 65 of the Act states:
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.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5499481 2
(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.
2. The Applicant has applied for possession of the property at [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE]. The property is currently occupied by the Respondents, who are the previous owners.
3. The property was offered for sale by auction by [COMPANY]. The auction proceeded on 19 March 2026, with the Applicant being the highest bidder and purchaser of the property. Settlement took place on 29 April 2026. The Applicant has provided the Tribunal with the following documents:
a. A signed copy of the Particulars and Terms of Sale dated 19 March 2026, which included:
i. Particulars of the property; and
ii. A memorandum of agreement.
b. Confirmation of settlement.
c. Confirmation of funds transfer paid to the Vendor’s solicitor on settlement.
d. Settlement statement dated 29 April 2026; and
e. The RECORD OF TITLE UNDER LAND TRANSFER ACT 2017 recording the Applicants as the ‘Registered Owners’.
4. On 3 May 2026, the Applicant served a trespass notice and Solicitor’s letter on the Respondents. The letter required the Respondents to vacate the property immediately.
5. Section 65 of the Act was considered by the High Court in [NAME] v [NAME] [2019] NZHC 328. [ADDRESS] held at [74] that there are three conditions which have to be met before a possession 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.
6. There is no dispute the premises are residential premises.
7. The evidence provided by the Applicant is sufficient to prove entitlement to possession of the premises.
8. The Respondents are occupying the premises. They state:
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/120/en/latest/DLM36926 https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/120/en/latest/DLM36926
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5499481 3
a. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the Applicants claim. They are not tenants and have never been tenants of the Applicant.
b. The Applicant breached the terms and conditions of the Sale and Purchase agreement by failing to settle on time.
c. They have filed an application with the District Court:
i. Challenging the lawfulness of the sale of the property and the method of sale; and
ii. Seek an order invalidating the sale of the property; and
iii. Seek an order enabling the redemption of their mortgage.
9. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear claims challenging the ownership of property. The jurisdiction for that dispute comes under the provisions of the Property Law Act 2007. A claim must be made in the High Court regarding a dispute about property ownership.
10. At the date of hearing no proceedings have been commenced in the High Court.
Conclusion
11. Section 65 of the Act gives the Tribunal jurisdiction to hear an application for possession where an occupant or occupants are in possession of a property as squatters, trespassers, or otherwise pursuant to any right of occupants granted by a person having lawful authority to do so. The Applicant has proved that they are the legal owner and right of possession of the property. The Respondents have not proved a right to occupy following the sale of the property to the applicants. The Respondents have not provided evidence of a legal challenge in the High Court regarding the ownership of the property.
12. Therefore the Tribunal must order immediate possession of [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] to the Applicant.
[NAME]
30 May 2026
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5499481 4
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, or the failure to make an order, where the amount in dispute on appeal is
less than $1000 • a final order to undertake work, or the failure to make an order, where the value of the
work in dispute on appeal is 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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5499481 5
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:
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- Tenancy Tribunal Tenancy Tribunal Rules Tenant Must Pay Damages and Bond Repayment
- Tenancy Tribunal Tenant Wins Compensation for Landlord's Failure to Maintain Premises
- Tenancy Tribunal Claimant Awarded Rent Arrears by Tenancy Tribunal
- Tenancy Tribunal Landlord Granted Possession After Tenant's Abandonment
- Tenancy Tribunal Tenant Ordered to Pay Rent Arrears and Filing Fee
- Tenancy Tribunal Tenant Ordered to Pay Landlord $839.79 for Rent Arrears and Costs
- Tenancy Tribunal Tenancy Tribunal Orders Tenant to Pay Damages and Arrears
- Tenancy Tribunal Tenant Ordered to Pay Rent Arrears and Damages
- Tenancy Tribunal Tenant's Tenancy Terminated Due to Rent Arrears
- Tenancy Tribunal Tenants Ordered to Pay Rent Arrears and Repair Costs After Rehearing
- Tenancy Tribunal Tenancy Terminated Due to Rent Arrears
A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The property is residential premises.
- The Applicant provided sufficient evidence to prove entitlement to possession of the property.
- The Respondents did not provide any legal challenge in the High Court regarding the ownership of the property.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over claims challenging the ownership of property.
- The Respondents claimed that the Applicant breached the terms and conditions of the Sale and Purchase agreement by failing to settle on time.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The claimant was granted immediate possession of a property from squatters.
Who was involved?
A landlord and previous owners who were occupying the property without legal right.
How did the court decide, and why?
The Tribunal found that the claimant had lawful entitlement to possession and the respondents were not legally entitled to occupy the premises.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Section 65 of the Residential Tenancies Act was used to grant a possession order.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The claimant's proof of lawful entitlement and the respondents' lack of legal right to occupy.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
For the claimant, granting immediate possession.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
A property owner can seek an order from the Tenancy Tribunal if squatters are occupying their premises without legal right.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence of lawful purchase and settlement, along with service of notice to vacate.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, but only on grounds that the decision was wrong in law or fact, not just because you disagree.
Is it worth getting a lawyer for a case like this?
It's advisable to consult with a qualified lawyer to understand your rights and options.
