Tribunal Grants Landlord Possession Order Against Squatters
📌 In brief
The Tenancy Tribunal granted possession of the premises to the landlord because the tenants were occupying the property without permission. The Tribunal ruled that the premises were residential and that the landlord was entitled to possession.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant occupying premises without permission can be evicted under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986.
📖 What the law says
This rule allows the Tenancy Tribunal to order someone to leave a residential property if they are living there without permission, like a squatter or trespasser. If the Tribunal is convinced that someone is occupying a property without a legal right granted by the owner, it must issue an order for the owner to get the property back. This rule does not stop other laws or ways for an owner to get their property back.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Tenancy Tribunal granted possession of the premises to the landlord due to the tenants occupying without permission.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tenancy Tribunal granted possession of the premises to the landlord due to the tenants occupying without permission. The Tribunal found that the premises were residential and that the landlord was entitled to possession. The tenants had no lawful right to occupy the premises.
📚 Full judgment Official document
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5209251 1
[2025] NZTT 5209251
TENANCY TRIBUNAL AT [Event location suppressed]
APPLICANT: [redacted]
Landlord
RESPONDENT: [redacted]
Tenant
TENANCY ADDRESS: [Tenancy address suppressed]
ORDER
1. An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant and Landlord name and identifying details. The other parties may be referred to as [NAME] in any publication.
2. Land Information New Zealand is granted immediate possession of the premises at [Tenancy address suppressed].
3. [The tenant/s] must pay [The landlord/s] $27.00 immediately.
Reasons:
1. The landlord attended the hearing, by telephone.
2. Unfortunately, the Tribunal was unable to connect by telephone with the other parties.
3. The applicant has applied for possession of the premises on the basis that [NAME] are squatters and occupying the premises without permission.
4. In support of the application a copy of the record of title under the Land Transfer Act 2017 and photographs of the structures occupied by [NAME] were provided.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5209251 2
5. The land is part of a portfolio of [NAME] administered by the applicant for possible future Treaty of Waitangi settlements.
6. Previously until 2017 Mr N’s late father resided in a dwelling erected on the premises, but following the death of a subsequent tenant the dwelling has been boarded up and is no longer rented.
7. The applicant submitted that since 2017 [NAME] had lived in a trailer parked on part of the land without any consent to do so.
8. In addition, there was also a house bus, which appeared to be occupied.
Legislative requirements
9. Section 65 Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (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.
10. The High Court in Sergeant v Nigro and Tapsell [2019] NZHC 328 considered section 65. [ADDRESS] 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?
11. Section 2 of the RTA defines residential premises as,
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5209251 3
“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.”
12. “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.
13. It follows from the definition that the premises are residential premises.
Is the applicant entitled to possession?
14. The applicant submitted that they were entitled to possession because they owned the property, no tenancy had been granted to Mr N or Ms M and they had made repeated efforts to persuade them to voluntarily leave.
15. In Chou v Chou [2016] NZDC 15768 the District Court made it clear that the Tribunal could not evaluate the merits of any claim in another Court in determining whether the applicant had a right to possession. The Tribunal simply has no jurisdiction to consider any other undetermined claims.
16. 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. This was confirmed by the District Court in Wallath v Wallath [2021] NZDC 14323.
17. I find the evidence supports that the applicant is the only party with lawful authority to grant a right of occupation and that no such right has been granted to Mr N or Ms M.
[NAME]
18. As [NAME] have no lawful right to occupy the premises all the criteria of section 65 have been satisfied and a possession order is granted to the applicant.
19. [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim and I must award the filing fee.
20. Suppression is granted to the applicant pursuant to section 95A(1) because they were wholly successful in the proceedings.
21. I have exercised the discretion in section 95A(4) to suppress the names of the other party because there is a young child involved.
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5209251 4
[NAME] 03 April 2025
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5209251 5
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/
__________________________________________________________________________________ 5209251 6
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 applicant proved ownership of the property, establishing their right to possession.
- The occupants were living in a trailer and house bus on the land without permission.
- The Tribunal confirmed that the land with the trailer and house bus qualified as residential premises.
- The Tribunal determined that the occupants had no lawful right to be on the property.
- The applicant was granted immediate possession of the premises.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Tenancy Tribunal granted possession of the premises to the landlord because the tenants were occupying the property without permission.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the tenants had a lawful right to occupy the premises without permission from the landlord.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the tenants were squatters and did not have a lawful right to occupy the premises, thus granting possession to the landlord.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986, specifically section 65, was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the tenants were occupying the premises without permission, making them squatters.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case, the landlord.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation might be able to obtain a possession order if they can prove that the occupants are squatters without lawful permission.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Photographs of the structures occupied by the tenants and a copy of the record of title were provided as evidence.