Tenancy Tribunal Rules Lack of Jurisdiction Over Building Managers
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal decided it cannot hear disputes involving building managers instead of landlords. This ruling was based on the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 77(1).
⚖️ Legal holding
The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear disputes involving a building manager rather than a landlord.
📖 Technical summary
The Tenancy Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over claims against building managers instead of landlords.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear a claim against a building manager rather than the landlord, citing the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 77(1).
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5458509 1
[2026] NZTT 5458509
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT REMOTE LOCATION | TE TARAIPIUNARA RETIHANGA
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Tenant
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Landlord
TENANCY ADDRESS: Room 303, [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE], The Cube Apartments
DECLARATION
1. The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine this claim.
Reasons:
2. Both parties attended the hearing.
3. Section 77(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 provides that the Tenancy Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine disputes that exist between a landlord and tenant, or between a landlord and the guarantor of a tenant, relating to a tenancy to which the Act applies.
4. In this proceeding, the claim has been brought against the building manager rather than the landlord. The building manager is not a party identified in section 77(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the dispute is not one that falls within the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5458509 2
5. As the claim is not a dispute between a landlord and tenant within the meaning of section 77, the appropriate forum for determination of the dispute is the Disputes Tribunal.
H Ben Fayed 29 May 2026
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5458509 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, 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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5458509 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:
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear disputes involving a building manager instead of a landlord.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the Tenancy Tribunal could hear a claim against a building manager rather than the landlord.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the Tenancy Tribunal lacks jurisdiction because the building manager is not a party identified in section 77(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Section 77(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the building manager is not a party identified in section 77(1) of the Act.
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 their dispute in the Disputes Tribunal.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify any particular evidence or documents that mattered.